Loading...
PC Min 03/12/1985PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 PM MINUTES MARCH 12, 1.985 The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day in regular session at the regular meeting place, the Council Chambers of City Hall, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Howard, Toshach, Dickson, Fairbanks; Planning Director Arthur A. Kee, Principal Planner Philip J. Stafford, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, City Attorney J. Robert Dempster, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S: Howard, Toshach - That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 26, 1985 be approved with the following corrections: Page 5, Paragraph 7, reads "Chairman Fairbanks stated that she was disappointed about the color of the wall." Should read: "Chairman Fairbanks stated that the applicant had stated they were going to color the wall one color and they did not do so." Page 11, Paragraph 2, should read: "Commissioner Toshach asked Mr. Peterson...". Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Kee reported that communications received pertained to specific items on the agenda and would be discussed at that time. Chairman Fairbanks read a letter of resignation from Commissioner Howard, and stated that she has enjoyed working with him and is sorry to see him leave. -2- ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS S 85-03 Application of Mr. Jerry Schweitzer Schweitzer, J. for approval of plans and elevations to construct two office-warehouse buildings on properties known as 184 Veitenheimer Lane and 898 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reported that Staff is recommending a continuance for this item. M/S: Howard, Christ - PUBLIC HEARINGS PM 85-04 That S 85-03 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 26, 1985. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Tentative Parcel Map - Lands of Tersigni - 1295 Harriet Avenue - APN 403-19-009. Mr. Kee reviewed the application for the Commission, noting that the applicant is requesting approval of a tentative parcel map to allow the creation of three single-family lots. Each of the proposed lots satisfy the minimun area of 9000 sq.ft. as specified in the R-1-9 zoning district in which the development is located. Additionally, the proposed density of 3.37 units per gross acre is consistent with the General Plan designation for this area. Chairman Fairbanks asked about street improvements for the corner. Mr. Helms indicated that there would be a requirement that standard street improvements be installed across the frontages of the parcels in accordance with the ordinances of the City. Hacienda would be in accord with the residential standards, and Harriet might be eligible for the alternative street improvements. Chairman Fairbanks opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Dave McCurdy, 1292 Freda Ct., spoke in favor of the proposed subdivision, noting that it would improve the neighborhood. M/S: Kasolas, Howard - That the public hearing for PM 85-04 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0) . -3- M/S: Kasolas, Howard - That PM 85-04 be approved by the Planning Commission, subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet (attached hereto). Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Howard, Toshach, Dickson, Fairbanks NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None. UP 84-19 Continued public hearing to consider Salvador, J. the application of Mr. Joe Salvador for approval of a use permit to allow the construction of a parking lot and storage yard on property known as 238 & 246 Railway Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. In addressing the concerns expressed by Staff and the Committee, the applicant has agreed to the red-lining of the presented plans which increase parking and landscaping. Therefore, the Committee is recommending approval. Commissioner Kasolas load/unload, creating Staff has prepared a severely impacted by of Railway Avenue by should be prepared. asked if 3 a traff Negative the uses trucks. this property was one where trucks is problem in this area. And, if so, why Declaration when it is known that area is during peak hours--especially the blocking Commissioner Kasolas wondered if an EIR Dlr. Kee stated that Staff is of the opinion that this use permit will improve the situation in this area. If the use permit is granted, the property can be brought into conformance. Commissioner Kasolas stated that he was satisfied with Staff's answer. Chairman Fairbanks opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Christ, Perrine - That the public hearing on UP 84-19 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). -4- M/S: Christ, Perrine - That the Planning Commission accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for UP 84-19. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2323 recommending approval of UP 84-19 for a period of three years subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet (attached hereto), and as redlined on the presented plans. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Howard, Toshach, Dickson, Fairbanks AYES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None. TA 85-02 Public hearing to consider a City-initiated text amendment to Chapter 21.19 (Additional Living Units) of the Campbell Municipal Code. Mr. Stafford reviewed this item for the Commission, noting that it is Staff's understanding that the Commission is concerned about two provisions of the Ordinance: 1) height; and 2) the requirements that the main dwelling may not be expanded more than 108 to accommodate an additional living unit. The proposed amendment would prohibit two-story detached units, but would allow a secondary living unit on the second floor of the main house. Regarding the expansion, Staff recommends that the 108 requirement for expansion be deleted and that instead the maximum size requirement of 640 sq.ft. for detached units also be applied to attached units. Chairman Fairbanks opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Howard, Toshach - That the closed. (7-0-0). M/S: Howard, Toshach - That the that the Negative .prepared public hearing on TA 85-02 be Motion carried unanimously Planning Commission recommend City Council accept the Declaration which has been for this text amendment. -5- That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2324 recommending that the City Council amend Chapter 21.19 of the Campbell Municipal Code as indicated in Exhibit A of the Staff Comment Sheet (attached hereto). Discussion of Motion Commissioner Kasolas stated that he would be voting against the motion. He expressed a concern as to whether or not the Commission has taken the right approach to this issue, that it appears that this issue came up based upon one particular second story dwelling unit. Commissioner Kasolas spoke in favor of "granny flats" in that he felt this type of housing is needed. Commissioner Christ felt that the changes proposed would actually increase the eligible amount of square footage for a secondary living unit. The only thing being restricted is the height. Commissioner Kasolas felt that what is happening now is that granny flats are being limited to a portion of the City, and being restricted even further. Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Perrine, Christ, Howard, Toshach, Dickson, Fairbanks NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas ABSENT: Commissioners: None. EIR 84-04 Public hearing to consider the Draft Prometheus Dev. Co. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which has been prepared for an office and hotel complex which is proposed to be located at 920 E. Hamilton Avenue in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District. Mr. Stafford reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Commission . Commissioner Kasolas asked in what position the City would be left if this EIR is certified as complete, and for one reason or another, certain assumptions made in the EIR do not come to fruition. -6- Mr. Stafford stated that measures contained in the EIR would be made conditions of approval and would be required as part of Phase I prior to occupancy. If these conditions are not met, then the project would be back to square one, or the developer would have to ask the City to reconsider it's position. Commissioner Toshach expressed concerns about the reflectivity of the glass purposed in the building materials (what effect on the environment, and direction of reflections); provision for pedestrian traffic on Hamilton Avenue; vehicle flow (trip origins/destinations); and, the validity of the presented 10.5 trip ends per hotel room--with one parking space per room. Mr. Gerry DeYoung, Ruth & Going, Inc., explained that the architects have chosen to use reasonably non-reflective glass for this project, thereby providing a minimal impact on the surrounding area. Mr. DeYoung continued that although he is unable to answer specific questions relative to light, he can say that there will be some downward reflection. Commissioner Toshach noted that at high noon the downward glare could be significant, and he is concerned with the impact on the community. In that the EIR does present a mitigation measure, there is no basis for making a judgement on what effect the mitigation measure will have. Chairman Fairbanks opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Jeff Damon, Barton-Aschman Associates, responding to the pedestrian traffic issue, noted that although not designed yet, the bridge over the creek will be widened and the pedestrian walkway will be removed at this location. Pedestrians will be forced to cut across the street to proceed on Hamilton Avenue, thereby prohibiting pedestrian traffic on one side of Hamilton Avenue in this area. Mr. Damon indicated, in reference to the 10.5 trip ends per day with one parking space per hotel room, that the 10.5 trips would be one vehicle making 10.5 trips in or out of the development during the day. This information is. derived from Cal-Trans standard literature. Trip distribution for the hotel was determined by looking at the general geographic area, and it is felt that a significant amount of hotel traffic will come from the north (Silicon Valley area); and, for the office uses, we looked at the future growth for the residential areas. Commissioner Toshach asked about the reference in the EIR to Poisson distribution, and challenged the assumption that the distribution is Poisson. Mr. Damon explained that the Poisson manner is a standard statistical traffic engineering tool used nationwide. -~- Mrs. Garnetta Annabel, 951 Dry Creek Rd., representing the Cambrian Village Homeowner's Association, stated that it is the opinion of the Association that the proposed project is, in all its essential features, the same as the development which was repealed with the referendum. They asked that the EIR not be accepted on those grounds. If the mitigation measures were not adequate last year, they are not adequate this year. Additionally, it is felt that the EIR doesn't address queuing on Hwy. 17 between Hwy. 280 and Hamilton Avenue southbound trying to exit and go east on Hamilton if another light is put between Bascom and Salmar. Mrs. Annabel concluded that she did not think a project of this size could be considered without adding another lane on Hwy. 17 between Hamilton and Hwy. 280. Mr. Timothy Lundell, 2060 The Alameda, San Jose, representing the Hamilton Park Mobilehome Owners Association, cited from his letter (attached hereto) sent to Ruth & Going regarding the EIR. Mr. Lundell stated that he felt it appropriate that the EIR be amended regarding housing displacement; and, that the issue of any noticing given by the property owners is questionable at best, and the statement on page II-40 of the report is disputed. Mr. Ray Clarke, 325 April Way, reviewed his concerns regarding the EIR as presented in a memorandum (attached hereto) to the Commission. Mr. Clarke added that a written committment is essential from Cal-Trans for northbound off-ramp at eastbound exit of the development. Finally, he referred to the letter in the Commission's packet from the City of San Jose (attached hereto)--item nos. 3, 4, 6, 10, and 11. Mr. Clarke requested that consideration be given to not approving this EIR until such time as it satisfies the concerns expressed. Mr. Marv Rothman, 50 N. Midway Ave., stated that history is repeating itself, and cited the Ainsley development as an example. He noted that the traffic was at a maximum level when the Ainsley project was approved by the City of San Jose, and they approved it anyway. He felt it would behoove people to research the records. Mr. Rothman also felt that the issue of noise pollution was not adequately addressed. Mrs. Lorraine Holland, 40 N. Midway, spoke regarding the air quality in the valley. She read from an article published in the San Jose Mercury News on February 23, 1985 indicating that the problems of over-crowding, traffic, and high housing costs is making this a bad area to live and work. Mrs. Holland felt that the EIR does not address the lead content in the air (citing a letter from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, attached hereto). Further, Mrs. Holland felt that traffic is a tremendous problem in the area, and she did not see how someone could say that it could be controlled. She felt that a stand should be made, and that this project should be denied. -8- Commissioner Kasolas asked what assurances would be given that Phases I and II would, in fact, be built, noting that he did not see any fiscal impact report, financial analysis, or references made to Highway 85 and the light rail issue in the EIR. Commissioner Kasolas continued that he felt there were a lot of fears as to whether or not this project would be a benefit to the community; and, at this time, he felt a little uncomfortable with this EIR and would feel better if these issues could be addressed. Commissioner Toshach asked for further clarification on the shared parking issue. Mr. Damon explained that these figures are presented in Table 7, page 20. There has been•a fairly large study nationwide which looks at shared developments, parking considerations, and types of synergisms. This study was done under the auspices of the ULA, and shows assumptions made from types of land uses. Mr. Damon continued that he has looked at basically every major office development in the southbay area. Regarding Highway 85--at the time the report was prepared it is not certain what was going to happen with this issue. Regarding the light rail issue--it was recently learned that this is now the third priority listed with the County; however, when the report was prepared it was nothing but a plan line. Frankly, things are occuring faster than the EIR would indicate. Commissioner Toshach asked about Table 6, page II-64, which is used to support an assumption that average parking. demand is three spaces per 1000 net leasable square footage. Mr. Damon noted that this was the case. The assumption is suggesting the three spaces, with a 15~ conservative factor, which Barton-Aschman feels quite comfortable with. Mr. DeYoung noted that, regarding the fiscal issue, page II-32 mentions the benefits of this project to the City. Since the project is in a redevelopment area it would generate tax increment monies in the amount of $1.3 million dollars on the entire complex. Additionally, if and when the hotel is built, the City will realize an additional $350,000 in occupancy taxes. Commissioner Kasolas felt that there was not sufficient amount of information in this area, and asked how the figures were arrived at. He noted that he would like some assurances that these uses are feasible for this area. Is a hotel going to be built, and what basis/method is being used to come up with these figures. -9- Mr. DeYoung responded that the EIR is certainly based on a whole set of assumptions. Certainly the consulting firm has no way of knowing whether ~_~ or not the developer intends to built the project. The consultants typically deal with "worst cases" that the project could cause for the area. Regarding the fiscal impact--this is based totally on the square footage of the project and its future value. Since it is in a redevelopment area, the City will continue to accrue tax increments, and this is where the $1.3 millon dollars comes from. Regarding Phase I and Phase II, the consultants have no way of knowing if a project is going to be constructed. Ruth & Going tries to present, as the City's consultants, things that would happen if the project is built out at a maximum capacity. Commissioner Dickson referred to the letter received from the City of San Jose, and a letter received from Mr. Lynton Baker (attached hereto), and asked that the issues raised in these letter be addressed before the EIR is certified as completed. M/S: Dickson, Kasolas - That EIR 84-04 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1985, in order that issues. discussed this evening, as well as issues raised in correspondence received, be addressed in the EIR. Discussion on Motion: Mr. DeYoung indicated that discussion would be needed with Staff to determine level of detail; however, Ruth & Going is prepared to respond as soon as the information is received. Commissioner Christ noted the changes in the status of Route 85 and light rail, and asked that they be taken into account in the report. Commissioner Toshach stated that there are a number of questions about the assumptions that were made in the report. He felt that the assumptions that were made should be explicitedly laid out--where there are assumptions used, he would like some idea as to what risk is associated with accepting those assumptions. Mr. Dempster noted that the Commission may wish to take into consideration the issue of closing the public hearing or continuing the public hearing. If the public hearing is not closed and the answers to issues brought up this evening are brought back to the Commission, then other items are brought up under the public hearing, this matter could go on forever. Commissioner Dickson stated that this might be appropriate at the next meeting. He felt that the public should not be excluded as yet. Commissioner Kasolas stated his agreement with Commission Dickson. -10- Vote on Motion: The motion for continuance to the meeting of April 9, 1985, passed unanimously (7-0-0). The Commission recessed at 9:25 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:40 p.m. PD 84-06 Prometheus Dev. Co. Public hearing to consider the applica- tion of Mr. Thomas E. Fleischli, on behalf of "900 E. Hamilton Avenue, A General Partnership", for approval of a Planned Development Permit; and, approval of plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the construction of two 6-story office buildings, and a 250-room hotel complex (including restaurant and conference facilities) on property known as 920 E. Hamilton Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Chairman Fairbanks opened the public hearing on this item and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against, noting that this item relates to the previous EIR 84-04 which has been continued. M/S: Howard, Christ - Conversion Impact Report and Relocation Assistance That PD 84-06 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1985. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Public hearing to consider a report on the impact of the conversion of a mobilehome park upon the displaced residents - 920 E. Hamilton Avenue. Chairman Fairbanks opened the public hearing and invited anyone int he audience to speak for or against this item, noting that this item relates to the previous EIR 84-04 and PD 84-06 which have been continued to April 9, 1985. M/S: Howard, Christ - That the Conversion Impact Report be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1985. Motion __ carried unanimously (7-0-0). -11- MISCELLANEOUS Request Continued request for clarification of height restrictions in the P-O (Professional Office) Zoning District - Mr. H. J. Rubinstein. Mr. Kee reviewed this request for the Commission, and noted that Staff is recommending the policy indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet be adopted. Commissioner Toshach expressed a concern regarding the housing of mechanical equipment on the top of the 2-1/2 stories allowable in a P-O Zoning District since the P-O District frequently abuts residential areas. Mr. Kee indicated that any development in the P-O Zoning District must go through site and architectural review. There are cases when a 2-1/2 story structure could fit within the 35' limit. The mechanical equipment could be hidden below the roof line. Commissioner Toshach pointed out that there could be 35' to the top of the roof, with another 15' wall to hide the mechanical equipment; thereby having a building which is 50' tall. He felt that this is not what the City wants--that the total height in this zoning district, including mechanical equipment, should not exceed 35'. Commissioner Kasolas asked how the figure of 35' was arrived at. Mr. Kee noted that this was an arbitrary figure; however, it has some bearing to the normal height of walls (12'). Commissioner Toshach indicated that he believed Staff is in the process of studying this 35' figure and a report is due back to the Commission in the near future. M/S: Kasolas, Perrine - That the Planning Commission clarify the height restrictions in the Professional Office Zoning District by adopting the following policy: "The maximum height for proposed developments in the P-O (Professional Office) Zoning District shall be no more than two and one-half stories (2-1/2). The two and one-half stories shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. Roof equipment structures for the housing of elevators, stairways, tanks, ventilating fans or similar equipment required to operate and maintain the building, parapet walls, skylights, and similar structures may be erected above the height limit herein prescribed, but no roof structure or any space above the height limit shall be allowed for the purpose of providing additional floor space." -12- Discussion on Motion Commission Toshach stated that he would be voting against the motion in that he felt the maximum height should be 35' because of his concern expressed earlier that the mechanical equipment could add substantially to the height of the building. Commissioner Dickson noted he would also be opposing the motion for the same reason as Commissioner Toshach. Mr. Tom Libs, partner of Mr. Rubinstein, asked for the reason behind the 2-1/2 story height restriction. Mr. Kee responded that it is the intent of the ordinance that 2-1/2 stories be the limit and that they be kept within a 35' height limit. Exhibit A of the Staff Comment Sheet outlines three possibilities in which 2-1/2 stories could work. The policy of the City, as adopted by the Council, is for 35' or 2-1/2 stories. This policy was adopted to keep the height down. There is no physical reason for this restriction, although one rational is that small offices are usually abutting residential areas, and the height restriction in the residential areas is also 2-1/2 stories or 35'. Commissioner Dickson explained that there has been a great deal of discussion on height, and enough concern was indicated to cause the Council to adopt a policy. The Commission is implementing that adopted policy. Commissioner Kasolas added that this rule is part of the General Plan for the City. Again the issue this evening would be if mechnical equipment is to be included in the 35' height restriction, or if can be added to the top of the 35'. Vote on Motion Motion for approval of Staff recommendation passed with a vote of 4-3-0, with Commissioners Howard, Toshach, and Dickson voting "no". MM 85-03 Continued Tentative Parcel Map - Lands Lands of Water of Water Tower Associates - 300 Orchard Tower Associates City Drive - APN 413-07-062. Mr. Kee reported that the applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing lot into two parcels, with the proposed Parcel B being the open space amphitheater area adjacent to the parking structure. It should. be noted that any changes to this area must be approved by the City as part of a new PD ordinance, -13- Commissioner Kasolas asked if approval of this parcel would in any way obligate the Commission to approve development of this open space. Mr. Dempster stated that the Commission may wish to add a condition-that the applicant submit a letter indicating that it is his understanding that the Commission is only approving a lot split, and nothing is indicated in this approval for development of the newly created parcel. Mr. Stan Davis, 300 Orchard City Drive, stated that he has tenants who are prepared to lease space if there is a possibility of expansion in the future; and he is about to get a final loan on the property, and there is no way that a lender would release space at a later date. Mr. Davis continued that any conditions the Commission wished to place on the approval would be fine with him. Commissioner Toshach asked about the history of the dedication of this area for open space. Mr. Kee indicated that the subject area was approved as part of the Planned Development Permit, and the plans are a part of the ordinance. The open space goes all the way back to the beginning of The Factory, and was not specifically asked to be open space by the Commission or the Council. M/S: Perrine, Howard - That the Planning Commission approve PM 85-03, subject to the condition that the applicant submit a letter to the City Attorney indicating that it is his understanding that the Commission is only approving a lot split, and nothing is indicated in this approval for development of the newly created parcel. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). MM 84-14 Request for extension of approval Extension allowing the use of trailers - 110 W. Latimer Ave. - Our Mother of Perpetual Help Chapel. Mr. Kee reviewed this request for the Commission, noting that it has been the City's policy to allow trailers only as a temporary office use in conjunction with a construction project, however, this approval was an exception. In general, trailers do not meet the City's architectural design standards and the City wants permanent, well-designed buildings. Mr. Kee continued that Staff can only recommend an extension for a period - of six months in order that the applicant has some time to remove the trailers. It should be noted that Staff is not aware of any parking or other problems associated with the trailers. -14- Mr. Richard A. Hern, representing the church, stated that the church is using the trailers for classroom instruction and choir practice. The church has a building fund and is trying to find a permanent site, however this is out of the question at this time. The Commission made several motions and amendments, each with a different length of time for the extension. Each of these motions and amendments failed or died. The motion which passed follows: M/S: Howard, Perrine - That the Planning Commission grant a six-month extension with no attached conditions.. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: Discussion of Motion Commissioner Perrine noted that he strongly believed in religious freedom; however, he felt that the church should do it's best to seek a better environment for it's teachings. Chairman Fairbanks stated that she would be speaking in favor of the motion, although she has voted no on previous motions. Although the applicant has not abused the use of these trailers, the City's policy is that trailers are temporary, and perhaps this extension will allow the applicant an opportunity to dispose of them. Commissioner Dickson noted that there has been a great deal of discussion over the years regarding the placement of trailers being a temporary use, and he cannot support the motion. Vote on Motion: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Howard, Toshach, Fairbanks NOES: Commissioners: Dickson ABSENT: Commissioners: None. SA 85-06 Continued sign request - Hancock Fabric Hancock Fabric Warehouse Warehouse - 651 W. Hamilton Ave. - PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reported that a request for continuance has been received from the applicant. M/S: Christ, Kasolas - That SA 85-06 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 26, 1985 at the applicant's request. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). -15- SA 85-10 Signing request - All-Car Automotive - Haskell, S. 150 Gilman Avenue. Commissioner Christ reported that this item was before the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is of the opinion that there is a definite need for the signage as requested because of the location of the business. The Committee did recommend the addition of the address numbers to the sign, and is recommending approval. M/S: Perrine, Christ - That SA 85-10 be approved subject to the addition of the address numbers to the signage, as well as the applicant obtaining any necessary permits from the Building Department; and, the applicant submitting proof to the Planning Department that the sign will not overhang the adjacent property, or that permission from the adjacent property owner is obtained to allow the sign to overhang the property. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). MM 85-06 Application of Mr. Ken Baker, on behalf Baker, K. of Travelers Financial Services, for a modification of approved plans to allow the conversion of three racquetball courts to a weight room, child care, and stretching room in the existing Family Fitness Center on property known as 577 Salmar Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reviewed this application for the Commission, noting that Staff is of the opinion that the uses are compatible with the racquetball/handball center; and, Staff is recommending approval, subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. Mr. Jerry Sunie, Travelers Financial Services, noted that the company is not going to continue use of the day care facility, so that particular condition will be void. M/S: Kasolas, Howard - That MM 85-06 be approved, subject to condition indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet (attached hereto). Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). -16- Information Only Continued oral report from Public Works Staff regarding service request on Apricot Avenue - Pruneyard Vistas. Mr. Helms reported that Staff looked into the request made by Mrs. Burns at an earlier meeting. Staff is in agreement with her request, and a work request has been submitted. ADJOURNDiENT M/S: Dickson, Kasolas - That the Planning Commission meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. APPROVED: JoAnn Fairbanks Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis Recording Secretary