PC 12/13/78 - Laserfiche WebLink

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1978 -4- all times: five employees plus herself and now the addition of a masseuse. The shop is a beauty salon, specializing in hair designs, facials, manicures, etc. and the masseuse would be for ladies only and that this activity is a proper part of the beauty salon business. He explained the masseuse has been licensed since October, 1975 and she is going through the Police Department permit process and furnished a copy of a letter from the Police Department substantiating their efforts to acquire the proper permits from them. Johanna Ketchler, the applicant, addressed the Commission presenting a petition with 150 signatures in support of her application. She stated this would be an asset to the salon and the community.' In answer to a question of Mr. Geppert, she stated she had no plans for expansion as there isn't sufficient room for her to expand. Suzy Nelson, 4051 Crest Court, spoke in favor of the masseuse. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Wilson made a motion to approve the employment of a masseuse in this establishment for females only. Commissioner Doherty seconded the motion. Resolution No. 1707 was then entered and adopted approving this use. Roll Call Vote Ayes: Commissioner Geppert, Getty, Wilson, Doherty and Chairman Jamieson Pdoes : None Absent: None Abstain: None The Commissioners then had further discussion with regard to other beauty salons applying for this use. The policy was then established that when a beauty salon had six or seven employees as part of a beauty salon, a masseuse would not change the salon into anything other than a beauty salon when there were 5-6 employees. The amount of business the masseuse would generate could not exceed 10~ of the total business and the use would be confined to females only. Mr. Harris also pointed out that anyone would have the right to appeal this decision within fifteen (15) days. PUD-78-5, The Chamberlain Group Application of the Chamberlain Group for development plan approval for an 82-lot, single family subdivision on a 60 acre site located at the eastern end of Arbor Drive in Vintage Hills. The site is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) District. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was also to have been considered. b1r. Harris explained the staff report. After input of Commissioner Doherty, objections of a local resident and further input by the rest of the Commissioners, Mr. Pozas of the Chamberlain Group asked that this case be continued until the January Planning Commission meeting so that they may prepare a project more acceptable to everyone. ,.. _,