Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-09-1999 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 9, 1999, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson Jennings called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Jennings, Johnson, Hughes, Musser, and Oravetz; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director;, Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner, Anne Kinney, Assistant Planner, Mike Porto, Consultant Planner; and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The minutes from the January 26, 1999 meeting were approved as submitted. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATION - None PUBLIC HEARING Cm. Jennings went over the procedure of a public hearing. 8.1 PA 98-067, Cottonwood Apartments Security Gates, Site Development Review (SDR) A Site Development Review request to construct wrought iron security gates at the northern and southern (leasing office) entrances to the Cottonwood Apartments located at 6500 Cottonwood Circle. Cm. Jennings opened the public hearing and asked for the staffreport. Anne Kinney, Assistant Planner, presented the staffmport. She stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a Site Development Review to construct security gates at the southern and northern entrances to the Cottonwood Apartments. The security gates are being proposed to deter vandalism and car-break- ins at the complex. The Applicant has stated that even though there have been few incidents recently, over the past few years non-residents have driven through the complex at night and broken in to cars. The security gates are intended to restrict car access only. The Applicant has stated that the gates will be open during the day to accommodate residents during the morning and evening commute hours and other daily services required by the complex. The Cottonwood Apartments consist of 248 units, and are located at the northwest comer of Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. Access to the complex is from two driveways off of Wildwood Drive along the western boundary of the site. The proposed security gates have been reviewed by the Building Department, the Public Works Department, Police Services and Planning Commission 1 February 9, 1999 Regular Meeting Alameda County Fire Department. The concerns raised are addressed in the conditions of approval as outlined in the draft resolution. The Site Development Review process evaluates proposed projects in relation to certain criteria and subject to conditions to determine if the project is appropriate for a specific site. The proposed Security Gates are appropriate for the site; the security gates would consist of an attractive wrought iron design and would not impact traffic or emergency access. She stated that there were two residents that have raised concerns, one of the residents was concerned with traffic safety, location of the gates, and operation of the gates; the second resident does not live in the complex and was concerned with the appropriateness of the gates and parking issues. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution approving PA 98-067 Cottonwood Apartments, Security Gates, Site Development Review. Cm. Hughes asked why the citizen who did not live in the complex did not feel it was appropriate. Ms. Kinney responded that the citizen did not like gated communities. Cm. Oravetz asked how many cars would back up if someone stopped at the entrance. Ms. Kinney said approximately 3 cars. Cm. Oravetz asked if the Police Department took into consideration the overflow of cars at the gate. Ms. Kinney stated that the Police Department did not indicate that would be an issue. Cm. Johnson asked if the sidewalks would be open for pedestrian access. Ms. Kinney responded yes. Cm. Johnson asked if the owners felt the problem was vandalism from people driving into the complex, vs. walking in. Ms. Kinney said yes, that is what the applicant stated. Bob Dual, architect for the project, said the gates were designed to meet staffs concerns and issues. The hours of operation would be open from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. There has been previous vandalism of car break-ins and the gate operations would be restricted to late night hours. Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Dual if he knew of any other apartment complexes in the area that has the same problems. Mr. Dual stated that he was not aware of any other problems. Cm. Oravetz asked who suggested the idea of a security gate. Mr. Dual said the idea came from the owner of the property. Cm. Hughes asked if any of the people that live there are opposed to the project Mr. Dual said there were only two citizens opposed, and one did not live in the complex. Cm. Hughes asked about off-site parking for guests coming in after hours. Planning Commission 2 February 9, 1999 Regular Meeting Mr. Dual stated there would be a directory at the gates and the guest would have to be buzzed in by someone who lives at the site. There is no off-site parking on the site. Cm. Hughes stated that there is a development in San Ramon that is a gated community and there is an endless amount of auto burglary. He asked how a delivery truck could get into the complex. Mr. Dual stated the gates are left open during the day. Cm. Oravetz asked if there are any guest parking. Mr. Dual stated there are designated spots for non-residents. Cm. Hughes asked if the City of Dublin has any other gated communities. Mr. Peabody responded no. Cm. Oravetz asked if the owners will pass on the expense of installing the gates to the people living there. Mr. Dual said it is built into the rent structure and the rates have to be competitive for the area. He did not feel just because of the gate installation, it would cause more than a normal progression of rent structure. Cm. Oravetz asked if this gate would surprise the residents. Mr. Dual stated the residents were all notified. He stated that staff felt the gates should be painted white, but white is a difficult color to keep clean, and would require more maintenance. He asked if there could be some reconsideration on the color, since black would minimize the need to paint it every month. Ms. Kinney stated staffwould take that into consideration. She felt that white would fit in better with the scheme of the apartments. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone wished to speak on this project. Richard Taylor, resident, stated he was not for or against the project. The City, not the owners, notified him of the project. He has lived there 3 V2 years and his rent has increased $205. His biggest concern is the north entrance and if2-3 cars line up, traffic would become a cut through. He is also concerned with the consistency on closing and opening the gates. The pool restrooms are supposed to be open during pool hours and they are not. Should there be a power failure, he did not want to be trapped. He called Rose Macias in Police Services and she has no record of abnormal activity in the area. He feels that if the gates are going to be installed, they should be white for visibility. Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Dual about the request of the gate, how many times and incidents had occurred on the site. Mr. Dual responded about 2-3 times since the project opened. The insurance company who owned the project wanted to give the complex a sense of security. He said that in the event of a power loss, the gates open automatically. Cm. Johnson asked who owns the complex to the north of Cottonwood. Mr. Dual stated the same group of people manages it but he is not sure of the ownership. Planning Commission 3 February 9, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing. Cm. Hughes asked how many units were there. Ms. Kinney responded 248. Cm. Hughes felt the gates are not needed. Cm. Johnson stated if correct, he is disappointed to hear that the management group did not advise the tenants. Cm. Oravetz stated it is a good solution, but there does not seem to be a problem that requires a security gate. Cm. Musser shared the other concerns of the other Commissioners. On motion by Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Hughes, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously denied PA 98-067, Cottonwood Apartments Security Gates, Site Development Review (SDR) request to construct wrought iron security gates at the northern and southern entrances to the Cottonwood Apartments located at 6500 Cottonwood Circle. 8.2 PA 98-063 Toll Brothers Site Development Review, Tentative Map, & Planned Development Rezone ora 28.9 acre site (Site 4 A & B of Alameda County Santa Rita Property) for development of three distinctly different architectural products ranging from 100 Single Family Detached lots with a minimum lot size of 4,000 sq. ft., 43 Single Family Detached lots with a minimum lot size of 2,961sq.ft., and 24 lots to be developed with 152 townhouses and a recreation complex. The project is located at the North East Corner of Dublin Blvd., & Tassajara Creek. Cm. Jennings opened the public hearing and asked for the staffreport. Mike Porto, Consultant Planner, presented the staffreport. Toll Brothers are proposing 143 single-family dwellings and 152 townhouse units to be located in 24 buildings along the far easterly side of the site. The buildings are mostly oriented in a "U" configuration with garages oriented to the rear facing garages of the adjacent cluster while the entries of the units face each other through a central courtyard. The project site is part of the larger 800+ acre property, known as the Santa Rita Property, owned by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority. Adoption of these plans designated the project site for Low, Medium, and Medium-High Density Residential as well as Industrial uses on both the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Planned Development Rezone sets forth land uses and development standards that would guide existing and future development for the pamel. The Vesting Tentative Map will subdivide the property into the numerous lots necessary for development. The Site Development Review is for the architecture and land plan. Staff recommends approval of the project Cm. Musser stated his concern was setbacks along the perimeter of the site. The units that back up along Dublin Blvd. seem to have small setbacks. Mr. Porto stated the setbacks are 10 feet from that particular edge. The width of Dublin Blvd. got wider by 12 feet and had to come out of the project. Cm. Musser asked about the units near the sound wall. Planning Commission 4 February 9, 1999 Regular Meeting Mr. Porto said the setbacks are 30 feet from the back of the sound wall. Mr. Peabody stated part of it would be a substantial landscaped area in the right of way against the wall. Cm. Hughes asked if the SDR would come back for further review. Mr. Porto responded no, the SDR was before them tonight. John Paynter, Regional Manager for Toll Brothers, stated that Toll Brothers is new to the area and their company is based in Philadelphia. They have 122 communities in 16 states. They have communities in the bay area, two in San Ramon and one in Novato and have won several awards for their products and communities. He thanked staff and looks forward to being in Dublin. Cm. Oravetz asked the price of the townhomes. Mr. Paynter stated the K&B townhomes to the west were selling for approximately mid $200,000 or a little higher. Toll Brothers will offer a different concept and are a little larger; the price will be a little higher than the K&B townhomes. Cm. Musser asked where the sound walls would be located on the project. Mr. Paynter stated that they would be consistent with the K&B project and would be designing the same wall. The final wall plan is required for review prior to the issuance of building permits. Mr. Porto stated that there is one particular floor plan that works well as a side unit. The door orients to the side, and the plan has the option for turning that door to the street. There will be a varying streetscape of front doors and sides, fences and landscaping similar to Richmond American. Cm. Johnson asked about parking along Central Parkway and Park Drive indicates there will not be a fence between the parking, the street and the house. Mr. Porto stated that is correct. Cm. Oravetz stated that parking on "street c" and parking on both sides of streets leaves little room for two cars to pass. Mr. Porto said these are the standard street widths of 36 feet curb to curb with parking on both sides. Staffreviewed it and asked for some areas to be widened to accommodate that. Staff has not had requests to come back and paint the curbs red. The project is over parked, but you can never have enough parking. Cm. Musser asked about the Central Parkway units' having a large appearance would Toll Brothers consider dressing up some of the window treatments with shutters. Mr. Porto stated the details along Central Parkway were shown in the applicant's submittal package. The staff report and agenda packets have the current embellishments. Mr. Paynter stated Mr. Porto spent a lot of time asking for those types of embellishments and there was a lot of time spent on those issues. Cm. Johnson asked if there would be homeowners associations. Planning Commission 5 February 9, 1999 Regular Meeting Mr. Paynter stated two, one for the townhomes, and one for the patio homes. Cm. Johnson asked about enforcement of parking on the street and driveways. Mr. Paynter stated his experience was that they are using the garages for cars, not storage. The parking requirements and guest parking issues were discussed at length. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone had any comments. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing. Mr. Porto stated that the project would have 18 foot driveways, and that was a benefit that supports parking cars in the garage. On motion by Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Musser, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 99-04 APPROVING THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PA 98-063 TOLL BROTHERS (TRACT NO. 7084) RESOLUTION NO. 99-05 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AND ESTABLISH FINDINGS, GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE FOR PA 98-063, TOLL BROTHERS - EMERALD GLEN #4 8.3 PA 98-024: All Aboard Mini-Storage General Plan Amendment Study The City is proposing a General Plan Amendment Study for property located East of Dougherty Road, Southwest of the northeast boundary of the Union Pacific right-of-way, and North of Houston Place. The study will analyze General Plan land use alternatives and determine the most appropriate General Plan Designation. Staffwill recommend a general plan amendment to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may recommend a general plan amendment to the City Council. Cm. Jennings opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Carrington presented the staffreport. He gave a brief history of the project. He stated staff just received a letter stating All Aboard has withdrawn their interest for a mini-storage. The property is not up for sale. He stated one option would be a commemial use. This would have a tax advantage for the City. Also, a commemial development would provide jobs within the City. The disadvantage would be competition with existing businesses in Dublin and it would become another strip commercial center. A second option would be an industrial park/office campus use. It could be one or two stories, with 370,000 square feet of office space. An advantage would be it could be flexible. It could provide some high value Planning Commission 6 February 9, 1999 Regular Meeting start up space, which is currently in high demand. It could set the tone for redevelopment in the entire area. A disadvantage would be it could keep vacancy rates for this type of use high for a while, thus delaying the leasing of similar uses on Dougherty Road. Another option could be residential use. Some advantages for residential use would be convenient to BART, and could provide needed medium-high density units. Some disadvantages for residential could be noise from Camp Parks and adjacent van and storage operations. Also, the surrounding area is not inviting for pedestrian environment. The last option could be commercial/msidential use. Some advantages of that use would be this type could have a synergistic compatibility where each benefit justifies the other. There are several disadvantages of this mixed use including this type might be better suited in downtown Dublin. He stated staff recommends approval of the resolution amending the General Plan. Cm. Hughes asked how many units could the property have. Mr. Carrington said up to 360 on the entire site. Cm. Hughes asked about the industrial park use. Mr. Peabody stated industrial areas change all the time. Cm. Hughes stated by putting an industrial park there, the City is continuing the area as it is now, which is not very attractive. At least residential would bring some color and variety to the area. He felt this area is the worse looking area in the City. Mr. Carrington stated whatever goes there, it is important that it be well designed. Cm. Musser stated he felt this was a gateway to Dublin and was concerned about what went there. He would rather see high density residential than open storage yards near a BART station. Cm. Johnson asked the time frame for Dougherty Road to go to 6 lanes. Mr. Carrington stated when Dougherty Valley was built. Cm. Musser said the Specific Plan allows for residential/campus office uses now. Mr. Carrington stated the General Plan is very general, the option before the Commission is to adopt some general land uses. Mr. Ridley, Sr. Manager of Union Pacific railroad, stated the joint partnership with All Aboard has terminated and the property is up for sale. Them have been preliminary discussions with other buyers and brokers, but nothing has come of that at this time. He hope that in the coming months, they could find an appropriate buyer to participate in the planning process. Sharam Tegarcy, stated the Omernick site was under contract with a proposed 177 upscale apartment complex. Since this is not a PD hearing, he did not get into the details. He addressed staffs concern on placing residential uses on that property. He handed out a paper outlining the reasons he felt residential was a good use on the site. He asked the Planning Commission to recommend residential to the City Council as a desirable land use. Cm. Jennings asked about the proposal of widening Dublin Blvd. Mr. Tagarcy stated a part of the property will be dedicated to the City. Planning Commission 7 February 9, 1999 Regular Meeting Gary Wilson, 6287 Dougherty Rd. stated Dublin lacks the small commercial warehouse space for start up shops for industrial uses. He felt a small business would be good tax revenue for the City. He stated them was toxic waste in the ama and it was not an attractive area to walk along. He asked for the City to consider having shops for the smaller business users. He asked what the difference is between campus office use and flex office use. Mr. Carrington explained the differences. The City is trying to provide some flexibility in what can go in there. He said the general plan categories are vague. It will provide office space in a campus like setting that would allow for light industrial similar to the area on Sierra Court. Mr. Wilson agreed with Mr. Carrington. He stated that residential use has a strain on City services such as sewer, water, Police services, etc., and felt that this area was a poor site for apartments. John Steinbusch, 5050 Hopyard Road, stated he is a commercial mai-estate company. He is working with Mr. Omemick, regarding the sale of his property. He stated Mr. Omernick has looked at a number of different opportunities for this property. He stated that residential use is one of the more favorable uses for that property. He said the market could dictate residential uses for that property. He feels that industrial product does not work in Dublin any more. He said the property values are approaching $1,000,000 per acre and an industrial building will not be economical. Denny Kahler, 6170 Houston Place, stated that he bought the property in late 80's and has heard many promises from the City about widening the road; and he is still waiting. He encouraged the City to do whatever it takes to make the ama look attractive, and do it as soon as possible. Mr. Wahlgran, European Auto Service, felt the area should remain commercial. He stated that it is hard to find space to expand and cannot find a space to expand in to. Dublin has enough housing and to add more housing will cause the traffic to get worse. Bruce Morgan, stated that he is one of the first 75 families to move into Dublin. He is wondering how Dublin keeps growing without water and sewage. Mr. Peabody stated DSRSD supplies our water and sewerage and has a long range plan to supply double the Dublin population. The infrastructure is there in order to accommodate growth. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing. Cm. Hughes stated Mr. Wilson had some interesting points. The primary issue is whether it will remain commercial or become residential. He stated that this ama is the northern extreme end of an industrial area. He said we have a chance to continue what is already there, which is less desirable or go forward and make a change for the positive. He felt the Iron Horse Trail is a great place to walk and residents would probably prefer to walk along residential rather than industrial. He felt this was an opportunity to beautify the area. There may be a need for more body shops but this is not the area to do that. He stated that having 177 units in an area close to BART is much more advantageous to the City than having more commercial in this particular area. Cm. Jennings spoke against the residential use. She believes that there is some confusion with campus office/commercial use. She read the definition for the record an industrialpark/campus office land use characterized by campus like setting for non-retail office uses and light industrial uses which do not generate nuisances related to emissions, odors or glare. This type of development combines the desirable traits of industrial park and campus office into a flex use that meets the needs of businesses with both Planning Commission 8 February 9, 1999 Regular Meeting industrial and office components. She stated that she envisioned small start up buildings a need for industrial/commercial. She stated that she could not see another 177 units gong into that area. She urged yes on the industrial/campus office use. Cm. Musser stated he would like to voice his support and agreed with Cm. Hughes. He feels that this is an opportunity to get some good residential use in the ama. He felt the whole area has uses that don't really belong there. With the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the BART Station, the City has to look at office and residential uses for the area. Them is a need for commercial uses, but those uses need to be relocated elsewhere in a more appropriate area. The campus/industrial designation in the Specific Plan provides for residential use and does not have a problem designating it campus/office with the provision that this apartment complex be permitted under that use. He would like to see the City take a look at the whole area for campus/office type use to permit and encourage higher density residential and office uses in there; this is a gateway to the City and needs to be dressed up. The character of the area is not a good one and he would like to see it changed. The General Plan has a bike trail running up Dougherty Ave. along the Camp Parks side and that path will intersect with the Iron Horse Trail path at this property site. Cm. Jennings said an industrial/campus area could be a quality product. She asked if the fact that it is zoned for industrial would make it less than quality. Cm. Musser said there is distinction, under the existing General Plan it is not designated campus/industrial. The industrial park designation under the existing General Plan has a statement that encourages what is in the area today which is inappropriate. The real issue is whether a higher density residential use is appropriate in this location near the BART station; the specific plan states that the campus industrial land use designation permits residential. Cm. Jennings asked staff the numbers of apartments approved and are in the process of completion in Eastern Dublin. Mr. Peabody stated approximately 1,283 apartments. Cm. Jennings stated that this proposal will add another 177 units and she still speaks against the project. Cm. Johnson stated that the entire land is used for residential it could go up to 600 units. Mr. Carrington stated approximately 300. Cm. Hughes asked ifa study has been done on how many new jobs are coming to East Dublin. Mr. Peabody responded yes, there are statistics for the area. Cm. Hughes said most of the new homes are out of the price range for most people and apartments are more affordable. There are more jobs coming in than them are housing units available. Cm. Musser stated that according to the Specific Plan, build out of the planning area will generate approximately 27,551 new residents, 12,356 new dwelling units and the number of jobs is 26,257. He commented that the number of jobs is twice as much as the number of housing units. Cm. Hughes stated that if the number of people moving into the area and subtract the number of children, there is a high percentage of people who will be working in this community with no place to live in this community. Planning Commission 9 February 9, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Jennings stated that there are fewer homes that are affordable and the chances are the people working in this community will not be living in this community. Cm. Hughes stated that the question is if Dublin wants to encourage people to live in the community or will Dublin be a commercial community that will drive out residential use. There are few buildings in this area that are attractive and too much commercial traffic congestion. Cm. Jennings stated that the existing buildings and traffic is not going to change. Putting in more apartments will have traffic. The word "flex" in the zoning does not mean it is going to stay that way forever. Cm. Hughes stated that to compare needs, does the City need more residential or more commercial. There was one speaker that stated this property is worth a million dollars an acre and over 7 million dollars for the property. Residential use may be the only viable use because of the value of the property. Does the City want to have a piece of property that will sit for 10 - 15 years. Cm. Jennings asked staff how could industrial park/campus use become residential also. Mr. Carrington stated you could have industrial uses on the ground floor, and residential uses on the upper floors. Or, high density on one part of the property and industrial on another part of the property but would not work well on this property. Cm. Johnson asked if they could recommend to the City that the ama should be campus office or residential, whatever the market decides. Mr. Peabody stated yes; but there are fundamental choices such as office and residential or leave it all commercial. Cm. Johnson stated one speaker already said financially a one story concrete tilt up could not work there. If residential or an upscale office building will do it, then let the market decide what will go in there. Cm. Jennings asked if the only type of building that can be built be a one story tilt up. Mr. Peabody stated no, one, two or three or four story. Cm. Johnson said whatever fits the financial needs of the land, the market will determine that not the Planning Commission. He asked ifa 7-10 story office building could be put on the property. Mr. Peabody stated the City has a 45 foot height limit in most areas. Cm Johnson stated he is in favor of wording it in such a way as to whatever the market brings in. Cm. Hughes stated that the Planning Commission can recommend to the City Council the area can be campus office or residential.. Gary Moore, asked when Dougherty Road was proposed to be 6 lanes. Mr. Peabody stated as soon as the City finds the funds. Mr. Moore asked who would loose property for the six lanes. Planning Commission 10 February 9, 1999 Regular Meeting Mr. Carrington said there was a 110-foot right of way, there will be dedications along some of the properties. Mr. Moore stated that some of those properties will loose property or parking. He said there is no where in Dublin to go. Residential will take the little guy and push them out. He asked what will happen with the traffic. Cm. Hughes said part of the City is demanding Dougherty Road be widened and some people will have to give up property, so there is no way to please everyone. Mr. Tagarcy said one option was to recommend to Council a new designation that was office/residential. Or ask the City Council to pick residential or office. Cm. Jennings asked if it was appropriate to have two designations on a property and then end it with whatever the market will permit. Mr. Peabody said no, either campus office, or medium-high residential. On motion by Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Johnson, with a vote of 4-1-0, Cm. Jennings was opposed, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending City Council amend the Dublin General Plan to apply the campus office land use designations as described in the Eastern Dublin General Planning area of the Dublin General Plan to the primary Planning area and change the transportation corridor and business park/industrial outdoor storage designation in the study area to either Campus Office or Medium High Density Residential. RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 06 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PA 98-024 THE ALL ABOARD MINI STORAGE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Mr. Wilson asked for the City to plan on building a small warehouse businesses elsewhere in the City. Cm. Jennings stated it would not be appropriate to add to these two motions but made a suggestion to the City Council. Cm. Johnson asked if the City has hired a consultant to make some recommendations on land use. Mr. Peabody stated the City is looking at several areas on the feasibility related to redevelopment. Cm. Hughes stated there are areas in Dublin properly zoned for warehouse businesses. Mr. Peabody stated the end of Golden Gate Ave. there are areas similar in nature but the vacancy rates are zero. Cm. Hughes stated that because of the economics it would stay zero. Cm. Musser stated that it is an issue a lot like affordable housing because of the cost implications of the land. Planning Commission 11 Febmary 9, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Musser made a recommendation to the City Council to conduct a study of the area south of Dublin Blvd., between Dougherty Road and Scarlett Court as a possible area for land use changes. The other Commissioners agreed with Cm. Musser's recommendation. ADOURNMENT Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, l~la'nr~lng'Commissio~ff/fiairperson Comm{l'nlty-DeveloCm ent Directoh/ Planning Commission 12 February 9, 1999 Regular Meeting