HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting Minutes 05-18-1987 , ~ ~
~
Regular Meeting - May 18, 1987
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on
May 18, 1987, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to
order at 7:00 p.m. by Cm. Raley, Chairperson. ~
,
~ ~ ~ ~
ROLL CALL ~I
PRESENT: Commissioners Burnham, Petty, Mack, and Raley, Laurence L. Tong, I
Planning Director, and Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner.
ABSENT: Commissioner Barnes.
~ ~c ~ ~
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Cm. Raley led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of
allegiance to the flag.
~ ~ ~ ~
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
Cm. Raley indicated that the Applicant for Item 8.1, PA 87-041 Diamond Signs/
Vista Green Conditional Use Permit request, had asked for a continuance.
~ ~ ~ ~
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
Mr. Tong advised that the minutes for the~meeting of May 4, 1987, were not
available. They will be presented for action at the meeting of June 1, 1987.
~e~~~
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
~ ~ ~ ~
WRITTEN COMMIJNICATIONS
Mr. Tong advised that the Commissioners had received seven Action Letters
either in their packets or distributed at the meeting for informational
purposes. He distributed an agenda for the proposed Tri-Valley Planning
Commissioners meeting regarding Tri-Valley transportation, and stated that
this item will be discussed further under NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-98 May 18, 1987
s • •
~
~Y '~f' ~C ~C . .
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SUBJECT: PA $7-041 Diamond Signs/Vista Green
Conditional Use Permit request.
Mr. Tong advised that this item was originally continued to the May 4, 1987,
Planning Commission meeting from the meeting of April 6, 1987, as the
Applicant and Developer had not complied with a condition of approval for a
previous Directional Tract Sign application prohibiting erection of the sign
until the Vista Green Development received approval for a Temporary Sales
Office and Model Home Complex. He indicated that the Developer was still
working on providing a parking plan for the Sales Office/Model Home Complex,
and had not yet complied with the referenced condition. As a result, Mr. Tong
stated that the Applicant was requesting the itern be continued until the
June 1, 1987, meeting. Mr. Tong stated that Staff was recoinmending the
Commmission continue the itern until that meeting. He indicated that if the
item is not ready to be heard at that time, Staff would recommend it be
continued until the subject condition has been met and the item be re-noticed
for the appropriate meeting.
Cm. Raley opened the public hearing to provide members of the audience with an
opportunity to speak in regards to this item. The Applicant was not present
and there were no comments from the audience.
By a unanimous consensus of the Cornmission (Cm. Barnes absent), Item 8.1,
PA 87-041 Diamond Signs, Inc./Vista Green Directianal Tract Sign - Gonditional
Use Permit Request, was continued until the meeting of June 1, 1987.
~ ~ ~~,~~~?J.~~,
SUBJECT: PA ~+~~Dublin Townhouses - Village VII
of the Villages at Alamo Creek - ~
Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Map
requests.
Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Mr. Gailey advised that this item was initially scheduled to be heard at the
Planning Comrnission meeting of May 4, 1987, but that due to the length of time
taken to consider items appearing on the agenda prior to the subject, it was
continued until this meeting. He reviewed the general location of the entire li
Villages at Alamo Creek project, as well as ~Che specific location of Village I
VII. I
I
Mr. Gailey indicated that the necessity for the subject Conditional Use Permit
and Tentative Map applications resulted from a proposed modification to the I
original product type as well as modifications to the approved street layout ,
and density changes from the original Rezoning approval for the Villages at
~ Alamo Creeks project. He advised that the Commission's action would be final
unless appealed, and that a Site Development Review application would have to
be submitted for approval at the Staff level prior to project construction.
He stated that the items which would be addrassed by the Site Develapment
Review would be minor as a result of the detailed nature of the current
application.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-99 May 18, 1987
, •
Mr. Gailey indicated that since the meeting of May 4, 1987, Staff's discussion
with the Applicant's Representative, Michael Courtney, had revealed two areas
of concern. Mr. Gailey referred to the City Engineer's memorandum of
February 3, 1987, and advised that Mr. Courtney's first concern related to
Items #1, #4, #9 and #10 of that memo. He indicated that the improvements
called for in these items apply to the entire Villages at Alamo Creek project.
He said Staff concurred with the Applicant's request that the recommended
Conditions of Approval from the City Engineer's memorandum be modified to
serve as notification to the Applicant that the requirements listed in the
four items are in place and will need to be addressed with the development of
the Villages at Alamo Creek pro~ect.
Mr. Gailey advised that the second area of concern related to Staff's
recommendation that common trash bin areas be developed and utilized rather
than allowing the use of individual trash cans. He referred to the letter
from Professional Management Associates (PMA), dated May 1, 1987, which
indicates that individual trash can services utilized for a projeet which PMA
manages in southern California, and which summarizes the advantages and
disadvantages PMA sees with the use of individual trash can services versus
use of common trash bin service. Mr. Gailey stated that Staff was continuing
to recommend use of common trash bin areas and asked for Planning Commission
direction on this item.
Mr. Gailey said Staff was recommending the Planning Commission adopt the
Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit application and the Resolution
approving the Tentative Map application.
Mr. Tong indicated that an additional item to be addressed related to the
project's Pedestrian Circulation Plan.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Petty, Mr. Gailey noted that the pedestrian
access for the proposed project differed from typical multiple family
residential projects in that the fronts of the units would be located opposite
the garages. No sidewalks were being proposed along the interior drive aisle.
Mr. Courtney, Applicant/Representative, and President of Standard Pacific,
advised that he had agreed to remo~ve the northerly unit on Building Grouping
#20 as required in Draft Condition #20 of the Conditional Use Permit. He
indicated that there is no comparable product-type currently in the City of
Dublin in that the pedestrian access and the vehicle access are not on the
same side. He commented on the Conditions of Approval for the Conditional iJse
Permit as indicated below:
Condition #1: He asked for a copy of City Council Resolutions No. 31-86 and
No. 32-86, which were referenced in this Condition.
Condition #10: He requested £lexibility in the manner the design specifica-
tions in this Condition are enforced in the event minor deviations from
measurements cited need to occur.
Condition #17: He asked that the format of the City/Developer Private Vehicle
Accessway Agreement be consistent with the rules and regulations stipulated by
the State of California Department of Real Estate,
Regular Meeting PCM-7-I00 May 18, 1987
. • ~
Condition #21: He requested that the reference to the "project lake° be
deleted from this Condition, which relates to occupancy, as it does not apply
to Village VII.
Condition #28: Mr. Courtney expressed his desire to utilize individual trash
cans instead of trash bin enclosures. He referred to the letter from PMA. He
said that common trash enclosure dumpsters create problems related to distance
from the individual units, spilling over, and being unsightly. Mr. Courtnay
indicated that he thought the individual trash cans were much more desirable
and made the project more marketable.
Regarding the Tentative Map application, Mr, Courtney stated that he thought
Condition #14, which would require compliance with the Gity Engineer's
requirements outlined in the memorandum dated February 3, 1987, should be
replaced with Condition #25 of the Conditional Use Permit Conditions of
Approval (which modifies the manner Items #1, #4, #9 and #10 of that
memorandum apply to Village VII).
Mr. Gailey responded to Mr. Courtney's concerns related to the Draft
Conditions of Approval for the Conditional Use Permit application as follows:
Condition #l: Mr. Gailey stated that the Resolutions referred to were
established by the City Council for the Tentative Map and PD Rezoning for the
entire Villages at Alamo Creek project. He said the City would make them
available to Mr. Courtney.
Condition #10; Mr. Gailey advised that Staff would not be opposed to adding a
statement to the effect that during the Site Development Review process the
exact nature of adjustments cited in this Condition could be determined, which
would provide the Applicant with a certain degree of flexibility.
Condition #17: Mr. Gailey stated that a Frivate Vehicle Accessway Agreement
had been prepared for the Arbor Creek project which was acceptable to the
Developers of the Village II of the Villages at Alamo Creek project. He said
the City would provide Mr. Courtney with a copy of the document.
Condition #21: Mr, Gailey concurred with the Applicant that reference to the
"project lake" could be deleted from this Condition.
Regarding Draft Condition #14 for the Tentative Map application, Mr. Gailey
agreed that the language in this Condition should be replaced by the language
in Draft Condition #25 for the Conditional Use Permit application.
Cm. Raley closed the public hearing.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Petty, Mr. Tong advised that no complaints
had been received by the City regarding the common trash enclosures utilized
for the Arbor Creek project.
Cm. Petty indicated that as a homeowner he would prefer to use individual
trash can service. ~
Regular Meeting PCM-7-101 May ].8, 1987
• •
Cm. Mack said she had seen trash enclosures in developments in the Los Angeles
area and thought they were unsightly. She stated that she thought one of the
main problems would be related to the overfilling of the dumpsters as a result
of the number of families within the proposed project. She indicated her
preference for individual trash can service.
Cm. Raley inquired about the possibility of utilizing coordinated cans if
individual trash can service is approved.
Mr. Courtney responded that cans could be provided at the time of the sale of
the units.
It was the unanimous consensus of the Commission (Cm. Barnes absent) that
indiviual trash can service could be utilized.
Regarding the circulation pattern, Cm. Petty said that he thought the concept
was a good one.
Cm. Burnham agreed with Cm. Petty, but expressed concern about the possibility
of bicycles and tricycles being left on the walkways or the driveways becoming
a playground.
Cm. Mack and Cm. Raley also agreed that the concept of separate vehicle and
pedestrian access was a good one.
On motion by Cm. Petty, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a unanimous vote
(Cm. Barnes absent), a Resolution was adopted approving Gonditional Use Permit
request PA 86-134.1, Standard Pacific of Northern California - Village VII of
the Villages at Alamo Creek, with modifications to Conditions #10 and #21, and
the elimination of Condition #2$.
RESOLUTION N0, 87 - 033
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST PA 86-134.1
STANDARD PACIFIC OF NORTHERN GALIFORNIA - VILLAGE VII OF THE VILLAGES AT
ALAMO CREEK PROJECT FOR A PROPOSED MiJLTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OF 139 UNITS PROPOSED OVER A 16.3+ ACRE PROPERTY FRONTING ALONG THE 50UTH SIDE
OF THE TERMINUS OF 5HADY CREEK ROAD
On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Petty, and by a unanimous vote
(Cm. Barnes absent), a Resolution was adopted approving Tentative Map 5780
concerning PA 86-134.2, Standard Pacific of Northern California - Village VII
of the Villages at Alamo Creek, with modification to Condition #14.
RESOLUTION N0. 87 - 034
APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP 5780 COIVCERNING PA $6-134.2 STANDARD PACIFIC
OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA - VILLAGE VII OF THE VILLAGES AT ALAMO CREEK PROJECT
FOR A PROPOSED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL D'EVELOPMENT OF 139 UNITS
OF THE TERMINUS OF SFiADY CREEK ROAD
~t~*~
Regular Meeting PCM-7-102 May 18, 1987
, ~ •
SUBJECT: PA 87-019.1, .2, .3 and .4 Douglas W.
Bradford (Applicant)/Amador Valley Lanes
(Owner) Conditional Use Permit, Site
Development Review, Tentative Parcel Map,
and Variance requests, 6000 Dougherty
Road.
Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Mr. Gailey advised that this item was initially heard at the Planning
Commission meeting of May 4, 1987. Mr. Gailey indicated that the May 18,
1987, Staff Report identifies each Condition in question at the May 4th
meeting, summarizes the issue involved, and details the Commission's direction
on each item. In addition, he stated that the Applicant's response to the
Commission's direction on each item is also indicated in the Staff Report.
Mr. Gailey noted that Staff and the Applicant had met several times since the
May 4th Planning Commission meeting and, as a result, several of the issues
could be resolved through modifications to the proposed Conditions of
Approval. Additionally, he stated that through the Conditions, better
direction as to the nature of the additional architectural detailing could be
provided.
On a point-by-point basis, Mr. Gailey reviewed the status of the following
concerns:
Condition #3 a, and b.: He advised that Staff continued to believe that a
minimum setback of 30' should be required. He indicated that Staff has
reviewed the Applicant's proposed modifications and that with slight
adjustments to the footprint of proposed Shop Building A, it appeared the 20'
minimum standard could be observed making the encroachment of the overhang
reflective of that permitted by the Building Code and Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
Condition #3 c.: He indicated that no change had been made to this Draft
Condition, but that the Applicant had made adjustments along the south side of
proposed Shop Building C to make allowance for the 10'sideyard.
Conditions #7 and #9: Mr. Gailey said that it was his understanding that the `
Applicant was receptive to the specific modifications outlined by Staff, which
would include designing the two building elevations in question with a 2'
overhang. Mr. Gailey displayed architectural drawings and noted that
different stucco texturing on the fascia band would be utilized.
Mr. Gailey indicated that the remaining concern was tied to a general design
concept for the fascia band. He stated that the Applicant's original proposal
was to use stucco surfacing with colored highlighted horizontal bands. He
said that Staff's concern related to the length and height of the structures.
He advised that Staff thought additional architectural detailing was necessary
and suggested that tile bands be used as an alternate texturing treatment in
lieu of horizontal stucco bands.
Regarding the treatment of the two rear elevations along the service portion
of Building B, Mr. Gailey said that the suggestion had been that some type of
vertical architectural trim element be added to the roll-up doors.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-103 May 18, 1987
° ~ •
Condition #28: Mr. Gailey advised that the Applicant had indicated he did not
have a concern with the revised language of this Condition (relating to the
retention of the trees along the west elevation of Building B).
Condition #33: Mr. Gailey noted that the original Draft Condition #33,
requiring the elimination of one parking space at the Sierra Lane Driveway,
had been deleted as the Revised Site Plan of May 12, 1987, reflects the
elimination of the one parking space and incorporation of that area in
perimeter project landscaping.
Condition #35: Mr. Gailey stated that the Applicant has agreed to comply with
this requirement relating to project signage (renumbered as Draft Condition
#32).
Condition #36: Mr. Gailey indicated that this Condition was modified to allow
the Applicant the option to use some combination of on-site and/or off-site
landscaping in conjunction with fencing to provide screening of the rear of
Building B. He advised that Staff would go on record as noting that fencing
along the majority of the area in question would probably be required, but
that the modified Condition would give the Applicant the flexibility to
attempt to show how an alternate approach would work.
Mr. Gailey stated that the Applicant had indicated a willingness to eliminate
the Minor Subdivision Variances. said Staff was recommending the minimum lot
size requirements for the M-1 District be observed.
Mr. Gailey advised that Staff was recommending the Planning Commission take
affirmative action on the Draft Resolutions for the Conditional Use Permit,
Site Development Review and Tentative Map requests, and adopt the Draft
Resolution denying the Variance requests.
Doug Bradford, Applicant, 3180 Crow Canyon Place, San Ramon, indicated his
concurrence with Mr. Gailey's presentation and said he had no further
comments.
Cm. Raley closed the public hearing.
At Cm. Burnham's request, Frank Bryant, Project Architect, reviewed the
exterior architectural plans for the project. He indicated that the columns
are proposed to be constructed with a stucco exterior, the fascia bands to
utilize tile trim, and that different stucco texturing and coloring would be
utilized.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Petty, Mr. Bryant indicated that there would
be vehicle access at the rear of Building B and that the existing large
electrical box on the outside of that building would be removed.
Cm. Burnharn expressed concern regarding the potential visibility of outside
storage that may occur behind Building B, and said that he would prefer to
have an agreement worked out with the adjoining property owner that would
result in use of landscaping rather than a solid wall or fence.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-104 May 18, 1987
~ ~
Cm. Petty said he concurred with Cm. Burnham.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Raley, Mr. Gailey clarified the setback
calculation of 20' and how it related to overhang encroachments.
It was the consensus of the Commission that flexibility be given to the
Developer to potentially utilize landscaing in lieu of fencing as stipulated
in Draft Condition #48.
Mr. Gailey emphasized that the bulk of the trees on the west property boundary
may need to be removed. He indicated that currently the most effective
screening of the building is provided by the trees which may need to be
re~oved.
Cm. Petty stated that he did not desire the installation of a six-foot fence
along the west property line.
Cm. Mack and Cm. Raley indicated their preference to have a masonry fence
installed along the west property line.
Mr. Tong indicated that Staff's reason for proposing the fence was ta provide
some landscape buffer and to provide a visual screen for the adjoining office
uses.
A consensus was taken during which Cm. Mack and Cm. Raley expressed a desire
for the installation of the proposed fence, and Cm. Burnham and Cm. Petty
opposed the fence.
Regarding Draft Conditions #6 and #7 of the Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review applications, Mr. Gailey asked for the Commission's
direction regarding the proposed language. He advised that the language could
remain as presented, but that additional language was recommended to be added
to Draft Condition #6 to the effect that an alternate design solution may be
used if found acceptable by the Planning Director.
It was the unanimous consensus of the Commission (Cm. Barnes absent), to
modify Draft Conditions #6 and #7 as stated by Mr. Gailey.
Cm. Petty stated that it was his preference that the setback requirement
originally proposed by Staff at 30' should rema.in in effect.
Mr. Gailey indicated that the existing structure adjoining proposed Shop
Building C, which is a low block building, observes the 30' setback.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Raley, Mr. Bradford expressed his concern
regarding the possibility of requiring the 30' setback since Staff had
previously indicated their acceptance of a lesser setback. He stated that it
was extremely critical to him that no additional time be lost as a result of
another change in the setback requirement.
Cm. Petty, Cm. Burnham and Cm. Mack stated their preference for the 20'
setback. Cm. Raley stated his preference for the 30' setback.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-105 May 18, 1987
. . . ~
Mr. Tong clarified that the setback requirement of 20' would allow up to a 2'
encroachment for an overhang. He said Building A, as shown on the latest Site
Plan, would actually be set back 23' to the building wall with a 5' overhang
encroaching 2' into the required 20' setback. Building C would be set back
25' to the building wall.
On motion by Cm. Petty, seconded by Cm. Mack, and by a unanimous vote
(Cm. Barnes absent), a Resolution was approved adopting a Negative Declaration
of Environmental Signficance for PA 87-019.1, .2, .3 and .4.
RESOLUTION N0. 87 - 035
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR
PA 87-019.1, .2, .3 AND .4 DOUGLAS W. BRADFORD (APPLICANT)/AMADOR VALLEY LANES
(OWNER) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP,
AND VARIANCE APPLICATIONS TO ESTABLISH A RETAIL AND AUTOMOTIVE CENTER
AT 6000 DOUGHERTY ROAD
Cm. Raley indicated that he would like to see the fence discussed within Draft
Condition #45 included in the project.
Cm. Petty recommended that the Commission concur with what the Applicant and
Staff had agreed upon.
Cm. Burnham said he would strongly recommend that additional landscaping be
installed, but said he would concur with the Condition as drafted.
On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a unanimous vote
(Cm. Barnes absent), a Resolution was adopted approving PA 87-019.1 and .2
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review applications, with
modification to Condition #6 permitting an alternate design solution to be
used related to architectural detailing if found acceptable by the Planning
Director.
RESOLUTION N0. 87 - 036
APPROVING PA 87-019.1 AND .2 DOUGLAS W. BRADFORD (APPLICANT~/
AMADOR VALLEY LANES (OWNERS) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATIONS TO ESTABLISH A RETAIL AND
AUTOMOTIVE CENTER AT 6000 DOUGHERTY ROAD
On motion by Cm. Petty, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a unanimous vote
(Cm. Barnes absent), a Resolution was adopted approving PA 87-019.3 and .4
Tentative Parcel Map as presented.
RESOLUTION N0. 87 - 037
APPROVING PA 87-019.3 DOUGLAS W. BRADFORD (APPLICANT)/AMADOR VALLEY LANES
(OWNERS) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBDIVIDING 2.8+ ACRES INTO THREE PARCELS,
6000 DOUGHERTY ROAD
On motion by Cm. Petty, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a unanimous vote
(Cm. Barnes absent), a Resolution was adopted denying PA $7-019.4 Variance
request.
Reguiar Meeting PCM-7-106 May 18, 1987
' i F • ~
RESOLUTION N0. 87 - 038
DENYING PA 87-019.4 DOUGLAS W. BRADFORD (APPLICANT)/AMADOR VALLEY LANES
(OWNER) VARIANCE REQUESTS FROM THE M-1 DISTRICT STANDARDS (LOT SIZE, MEDIAN
LOT WIDTH, FRONT YARD SETBACK, REAR YARD SETBACK AND SIDE YARD SETBACK}
PROPOSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONCURRENT REQUESTS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
(PA 87-019.1), FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA 87-019.2),
AND FOR A TENTATIVE MAP (PA 87-019.3), FOR A PROPOSED RETAIL AND
AUTOMOTIVE CENTER AT 6000 DOUGHERTY ROAD
~ ~ ~ ~
NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Mr. Tong advised that since the previous City Council meeting had been
interrupted by a power failure, the Draft Downtown Plan would be on the
May 26, 1987, City Council meeting. He indicated that it had been intended
for the City Council to provide input regarding the proposed Tri-Valley
Transportation entity, but because of the power failure, they were not able to
do so. He stated that the Enea Plaza Rezoning request would be on the agenda
for the next City Council meeting, as would the General Plan Amendment Study
request for Dublin Ranch and surrounding properties, and a Short Range
Transportation Plan proposal from Wheels/LAVTA.
Mr. Tong advised that the Tri-Valley Planning Commission's meeting would be
held Thursday, May 21, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. in the Pleasanton City Council
Chambers. He noted that Staff would recommend to the Commission that the
respective City Councils should provide direction in regards to the proposed
transportation entity. He indicated tha.t attendance at Thursday's meeting
would be voluntary. Cm. Raley indicated that he would attend the meeting.
Commissioners Burnham, Mack and Petty indicated that they would not attend.
~ ~ ~ ~
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
~ ~ ~ ~ •
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Petty, Mr. Tong advised that the person who
appealed the Commission's action regarding the Pulte Home project had stated a
preference for Staff's Alternate Lotting Plan, and stated that she did not
want flag lots to be permitted and desired more on-street parking.
Cm. Mack inquired about the feasibility of conducting a survey which would
verify that a large portion of traffic within the City of Dublin results from
non-residents. Mr. Tong responded that an actual survey would not need to be
performed as it has been established that peak hour traffic for the most part
includes a great number of out-of-town shoppers. He indicated that through
the Downtown Study, the City will need to accommodate the shoppers coming into
the area for sales tax purposes.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-107 May 18, 1987
, . i ~r
Cm. Burnham asked if Mr. Tong was familiar with the operation of the generator
which came on for only a few seconds when the power went off at the Library
during the City Council meeting. Mr. Tong stated that he did not have any
information regarding that generator, and knew only that a P.G. & E.
transformer had malfunctioned.
Cm. Mack inquired if anyone else was having difficulty with their Cable
service. Cm. Petty indicated that he had.
Cm. Raley asked about the status of the Target Store and inquired about access
from the Library to the Gemco parking lot and from Gemco to Albertsons.
Mr. Tong responded that only the demolition and interior work was being done.
He stated that the Site Development Review for exterior modifications and the
Conditional Use Permit for the nursery would be placed on a future Planning
Commission agenda. He indicated that a condition requiring the access would
probably be included in the proposed conditions of approval.
Cm. Raley suggested that it may be feasible to require that the City pay a
portion of the expenses incurred as a result of removing a portion of the
Libary parking lot.
~ ~ ~ ~
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
~ ~ ~ ~
Respectfully submitted,
.
~GTf~J~- P anni Comraission Ghairpers
Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
~ ~ ~ ~
Regular Meeting PCM-7-108 May 18, 1987