Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting Minutes 10-05-1987 . , , ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting - October 5, 1987 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on October 5, 1987, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m, by Cm. Barnes, Vice Chairperson. ~ ~c ~ ~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Maclt, and Zika, Laurence L. Tang, Planning Director, Kevin Gailey, Senior Planner, Rod Barger, Senior Planner, and Maureen 0'Halloran, Associate Planner. ~ ~ ~c ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Barnes led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None. ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The Minutes of the August 17, 1987, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. ~ ~ ~ ~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ~ ~ ~ ~ WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ' Mr. Tong advised that the Gommissioners had received two Action Letters for informational purposes. Regular Meeting PCM-7-157 October 5, 1987 . . . , ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 87-094 Hot Rod Cafe - Dublin Associates (Owners)/JLH Enterprises (Applicants) - Conditional Use Permit, 7590 Amador Valley Boulevard. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey advised that the project involved a request for a Gonditional Use Permit for a commercial recreational facility (nightclub/restaurant with dance floor) in a portion of the vacant Showbiz Pizza Place facility. He emphasized that the Zoning Ordinance defines the proposed activity as a recreational facility, which necessitates the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. He also advised that no detailed site plan application or exterior building elevations have been filed to date. Mr. Gailey indicated that the subject proposal was initially scheduled to be heard at the Planning Commission meeting of August 17, 1987. He said a continuance from that date was prompted by special security/surveillance concerns raised by the Police Department relating to the proposed nightclub/ restaurant facility. He stated that the Applicant had subsequently reviewed the memorandum from the Dublin Police Chief addressing those concerns, and had advised Staff that their typical security measures would adequately address the Police Chief's recommendations. Mr. Gailey discussed a proposed mixed-use occupancy of the subject site which prompted the submittal of a Site Development Review request in January, 1986 (Planning Application PA 86-006). The request proposed development for an 8,000+ square foot restaurant and a 5,000+ square foot retail paint sales outlet. He indicated that the remaining 880+ square feet of the subject structure was proposed for development and use as a common entrance corridor running between the two tenant spaces. Mr. Gailey said that although the application was supported by Staff, the proposal was withdrawn prior to a final action being taken. Mr. Gailey referred to the Zoning History contained within the October 5, 1987, Staff Report, which outlined the building modifications proposed under PA 86-006. He indicated that to a great extent the modifications proposed under that permit would serve to further improve on-site security/surveillance considerations for the current project, particularly relating to the provision for an entry corridor between the two proposed tenant lease spaces. Mr. Gailey indicated that provision of the corridor would improve visibility from Amador Valley Boulevard, and the provision of new bay window cutouts along the structure's north and south building elevations which would improve visibility of the entrances of the two tenant spaces as viewed from the street and the adjoining parking area into the proposed nightclub/restaurant facility. Mr. Gailey indicated that Staff thought modifications to proposed Condition #b and Condition #16 would be appropriate. He stated that Condition #6 should be modified to prohibit any noise generated from within the building being discernable, without instruments, at any lot line of the subject property. Regarding Condition #16, he said Staff suggested the last sentence be modified Regular Meeting PCM-7-158 October 5, 1987 • • to put a minimum cap on the amount of contributions, prohibiting the contributions from exceeding either 5~ of the cost of the signalization or $5,000.00. Mr. Gailey said Staff was recommending the Planning Commission adopt two Resolutions, one approving the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and one approving the Conditional Use Permit application. He said direction for the ultimate site plan layout and for the building elevation modifications were reflected in the proposed Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit application. He reviewed the specific concerns and recommendations which were recommended to be addressed through the subsequent Site Development Review Permit process. Gilbert Konqui, Applicant, said his primary concerns related to the requirement for the entry corridor. He said he found that the restaurant is far more successful than anticipated and that as a result it may be feasible to expand the restaurant to the entire building at a future time. He said if the corridor is required, it would prevent the possibility of expanding the restaurant. He said Hot Rod Cafe has used some very unusual themes and artifacts in the design of the restaurants. Mr. Konqui noted that in the Alameda building a double decker bus was used as part of the design. He indicated that a 40-foot high sailboat was being considered for the Dublin building, and that the design took the height of the sails into consideration. Mr. Konqui referred to the issue of noise control and said that they did not have problems at their other outlets with surrounding property owners or tenants regarding excess noise. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. In response to a statement by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Gailey noted that the request presented to the Commissioners related to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial recreational facility within a C-1 District. He advised that if the Commissioners had concerns beyond the type of use, they should be noted and incorporated into the Conditions of Approval presented in the draft Resolution. He said the floor plans were not presented for approval and that no exterior changes to the structure or the site could occur without the submission and approval of a Site Development Review application. Cm. Burnham stated that he did not see the benefit of requiring an entry corridor between the two proposed tenant spaces. Cm. Zika also expressed concern regarding the 10' corridor. He said he thought it would be more of an attractive nuisance than a benefit, and suggested that the provision of the corridor be made optional. He said he would like to have some rationalization from the Police Department for the need for the corridor. Jerry Harris, Restaurant Owner, said they would be tripling the coverage asked for by the Police Department. Mr. Harris indicated that at their current outlets they utilize armed security personnel to patrol the parking lots, and employ personnel to monitor the doors. He referred to the positive reputation Hot Rod Cafe has in the Cities of Alameda and San Jose. Regular Meeting PCM-7-159 October 5, 1987 ~ ~ Cm. Burnham indicated that he has visited the Hot Rod Cafe facility in Alameda and noted that the facility was adequately policed. Cm. Barnes expressed her enthusiasm regarding the proposed Hot Rod Cafe. She said she was in opposition to the requirement of the corridor. On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was approved adopting a Negative Declaration for PA 87-094 Hot Rod Cafe. RESOLUTION N0. 87 - 065 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 87-094 HOT ROD CAFE - DUBLIN ASSOCIATES (OWNERS)/GILBERT A. KONQUI DESIGNS/ J.L.H. ENTERPRISES (APPLICANTS) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL FACILITY AT 7590 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was adopted approving PA 87-094 Hot Rod Cafe Conditional Use Permit application, with the following modifications to the Conditions of Approval: Condition #6: A statement will be added to prohibit excessive outside noise. Condition #12 A. and C.: Reference to the entry corridor will be deleted. Condition #13: Reference to the entry corridor will be deleted and this Condition will be coordinated with Condition #12. Condition #16: This Condition will be modified to put a cap on the amount of contribution towards the cost of signalization (the cost not exceed 5~ of the signalization cost or $5,000.00). RESOLUTION N0. 87 - 066 APPROVING PA 87-094 HOT ROD CAFE - DUBLIN ASSOCIATES (OWNERS) GILBERT A. KONQUI DESIGNS/J.L.H. ENTERPRISES (APPLIGANTS) - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO ESTASLISH AND OPERATE A COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL FACILITY AT 7590 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVAR.D SUBJECT: PA 87-106 United Car Stereo Conditional Use Permit request, 7590 Amador Valley Boulevard. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Barger advised that the Planning Commission had approved a request from United Car Stereo for a Conditional Use Permit to allow car stereo installa- tion on July 16, 1984. He indicated that the car installation activities were being carried out in an illegally constructed enclosure which had not received Building Department or Planning Department approval, and that a Condition of Approval for the July 16, 1984, permit was that the illegal structure be removed. Mr. Barger indicated that the structure was removed. Regular Meeting PCM-7-160 October 5, 1987 • • ~ ~ Mr. Barger indicated that on September 11, 1984, the Planning Director approved a Site Development Review application for a 266 square foot addition to the subject shopping center, which was to be utilized for the installation of car stereos. He said the 1984 Conditional Use Permit approval expired on July 16, 1987, and advised that on July 24, 1987, the owner of the business submitted a Conditional Use Permit application requesting that he be allowed to continue the car stereo installation activities on the subject site. Mr. Barger said Staff was recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit until October 5, 1992. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham related to the duration of the permit, Mr. Barger stated that Conditional Use Permits are generally approved for a three-year period, but that after the Applicant has completed the first three-year process, if no difficulties have occurred, grounds would exist for authorizing a longer permit period. He said no problems had arisen with the subject application. Mr. Tong advised that the City has fairly consistently acted on Conditional Use Permits with a three to five year duration. Mike Forney, Applicant, expressed appreciation to Staff and asked the Comrnission to approve the application. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was adopted approving PA $7-106 United Car Stereo's request for a conditional Use Permit. RESOLUTION N0. 87 - 067 APPROVING PA 87-106 UNITED CAR STEREO'S REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONTINUANCE OF INSTALLING CAR STEREOS WITHIN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ATTACHED TO TAE MAIN BUILDING AND LOCATED BEHIND UNITED CAR STEREO'S TENANT OCCUPANCY AT 7395 VILLAGE PARKWAY, DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA SUBJECT: PA 87-104 Crown-Isuzu Conditional Use Permit request, 5933 Doughert Road. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran advised that the Applicant was requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to continue the operation of an automobile sales/ display lot and car rental facility at 5933 Dougherty Road. She indicated that the car rental facility was not part of the original approval. She said the car rental facility would consist of the storage of 15 cars and 5 customer parking spaces, while the auto sales lot would display approximately 30 to 40 vehicles on site and provide 5 customer parking spaces. She said the Applicant had indicated that servicing of vehicles did not, and would not, occur on site, in that the rental cars were serviced in the Oakland or San Regular Meeting PCM-7-161 October 5, 1987 ~ ~ Francisco facilities and the new sales cars for the Crown-Isuzu dealership were delivered and serviced at the Crown-Chevrolet facility at 7544 Dublin Boulevard. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the auto sales/display and auto rental use was consistent with the Dublin General Plan land use designation. She said it was Staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution approving PA 87-104 Crown-Isuzu Conditional Use Permit. Pat Costello, Applicant, expressed appreciation to the Staff for their effarts on behalf of the subject project. He said he was in concurrence with the Conditions of Approval as presented by Staff. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Mack, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was adopted approving PA 87-104 Crown-Isuzu Conditional Use Permit. RESOLUTION N0. 87 - 068 APPROVING PA 87-104 CROWN-ISUZU CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONTINUE OPERATION OF AN AUTO SALES/DISPLAY LOT AND CAR RENTAL FACILITY AT 5933 DOUGHERTY ROAD ~ ~ ~ ~ SUBJECT: PA 87-056 Lopez Variance, 7632 Canterbury Court. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran advised that the subject application was a request to vary from the required minimum rearyard setback for an existing room addition and patio cover, and to vary from the Zoning Ordinance regulations requiring a minimum 6-foot setback between accessory structures and other structures on the site. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that as a result of a request by a realtor to inspect the room addition at the Lopez site, the Building Inspector and Zoning Investigator inspected the site and found that the room addition and patio cover were constructed without first obtaining building permits. In addition, they found several Building Code violations reiating to foundation construction, electrical wiring, rafters and framing, and two zoning violations. The room addition and patio cover did not maintain the required rearyard setback. The room addition and patio cover were set back only 8.5 feet from the rear property line, with a 3-foot eave overhang reducing the setback to 5.5 feet. Ms. 0'Halloran stated that the City Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 20- foot rearyard setback in the R-1-B-E District. She discussed the compensating yard provision in the Ordinance which allows a 10-foot rearyard setback when compensating yards are utilized. She indicated that the existing room addition and attached patio cover do not maintain the 10-foot minimum setback required to utilize the compensating yards provision. The second zoning violation related to the reduced setback between the accessory structure and the main structure. The Ordinance requires a 6-foot setback where a 5-foot 1-inch setback exists. Regular Meeting PCM-7-162 October 5, 1987 ~ • Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Applicant obtained building permits for the accessory structure and zoning approval required a 6-foot setback between the structures. However, the County Building Department inspected and approved the building even though it was built with a 5-foot 1-inch setback. Ms. 0'Halloran said that Applicant received written notification of the Building Code violations and Zoning Odinance violations on February 2, 1987, but that rather than remove the structures, the Applicant subsequently applied for a Variance. She stated that on August 11, 1987, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing to consider the Variance application, and at that time the Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No. 7- 87 1) approving the Variance for a reduced setback between the accessory structure and the main structure on the site, and 2) denying the Variance request to reduce the rearyard setback. She said the Applicant subsequenty appealed the Zoning Administrator's action. Ms. 0'Halloran discussed the findings of fact which must be made in order to consider the granting of a Variance, and said that Staff was unable to make those findings. She said the Applicant had indicated if a Variance was granted, he would correct the Building Code violations. Ms. 0'Halloran said Staff concurred with the Zoning Administrator findings and recommended denial of the Applicant's Variance request for the reduced rear- yard setback for the room addition and patio cover, and recommended approval of the Variance request to permit a reduced setback between the accessory structure and main structure on the site, in that it met the intent of the Ordinance allowing at least a 4-foot unobstructed ground to sky setback. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham regarding why the County may have passed the foundation and building inspections, Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the City's records do not address that issue. She said the plans in the Building file show the 6-foot setback was required during the zoning approval process. Henry Lopez, Property Owner, indicated that Mr. Tong and Ms. 0'Halloran had been very cooperative with him, and complimented them on their attitudes. He said he purchased his house 25 years ago and said the room addition was built to code at that time. He referred to the plans in possession by the Building Department, and said they had been approved by the County. He discussed the process through which he went in choosing his contractor and indicated he didn't think he needed a building permit for the addition. Mr. Lopez also stated he did not think he needed a Variance for the accessory structure, and did not and is not applying for one since the County approved it as built, but he noted he needed a Variance for the room addition as it is too close to the fence. He referred to his letter to the City dated April 13, 1987. He said he was prepared to supply letters from three of his immediate neighbors who would indicate that the accessory structure did not bother them. He said no one had appeared at the meeting in opposition of his building and indicated that he did not understanding why granting the 18" Variance on one corner of the building would show any type of special privilege. He said he would be willing to bring the building up to code. Regular Meeting PCM-7-163 October 5, 1987 ~ ~ Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. There was discussion concerning a house in the same vicinity with similar circumstances (i.e., it was built without the proper permits and was too close to the property line or setback). Mr. Tong indicated that a Variance request was filed for the property discussed, the hearing held, and because findings could not be made, the request was denied first by the Zoning Administrator, then by the Planning Commission, and finally by the City Council. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, Ms. 0'Halloran verified that a Building Inspector does not have the authority to approve a building which is not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Cm. Burnham expressed concern regarding authorizing the existence of a structure which did not meet code, particularly in regards to establishing a precedent. Mr. Lopez said he thought the property owner whose appeal went to the courts had won his case. Mr. Tong stated that the initial court decision was in favor of the property owner, but the case is now pending appeal. Cm. Mack agreed with Cm. Burnham's concern, and stated that she thought that situations similar to Mr. Lopez's exist throughout the City. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Lopez said he had made attempts to contact the contractor involved, but that the contractor is out of the area. Cm. Zika said he was concerned that the City denied the request by the property owner on the corner of Canterbury Court, and said he thought the Commission must act consistently. Mr. Lopez asked what the original agreement was between the City of Dublin and the County when the City incorporated. Mr. Tong indicated that upon incorporation the City adopted the same rules that were in place at the time Alameda County was incorporated. He advised that in no way did the City assume responsibility for errors made by the County. Any structures that were illegal under the County were not made legal by incorporation. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Zika, Ms. 0'Halloran said that the standard procedure is that structures in vialation of Building or Zoning Code regulations must be brought up to the current Building Code and Zoning Ordinance at the time they are brought to the City's attention. On motion by Cm. Burnam, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was adopted upholding the Zoning Administrator's action of August 11, 1987. Regular Meeting PCM-7-164 October 5, 1987 . . - - • ~ RESOLUTION N0. 87 - 069 UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION 1) APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR REDUCED SETBACK BETWEEN THE EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND THE EXISTING MAIN STRUCTURE AT 7632 CANTERBURY COURT, AND 2) DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR REDUCED REARYARD SETBACK FOR THE EXISTING ROOM ADDITION AND PATIO COVER CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT BUILDING PERMITS AT 7632 CANTERBURY COURT, PA 87-056 LOPEZ VARIANCE Mr. Lopez inquired if it would be possible to defer the action on his project until after the court decision pending on his neighbor's property has been rendered. Mr. Tong responded that the court case would not pertain to Mr. Lopez's situation, that it would be a separate decision, and would not affect Mr. Lopez's property. Cm. Barnes reminded Mr. Lopez the public hearing was closed and that his request had been acted on by the Planning Commission. She said the City provided Mr. Lopez with the option of appealing to the City Council for further action. ~ ~ ~ ~ SUBJECT: PA 87-096 Circuit Gity Store Site Develop- ment Review and Minor Subdivision request, 7450 Amador Valley Boulevard. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing. Mr. Barger advised that a request had been received from First Western Development for a proposed Minor Subdivision to subdivide an existing 7.002 acre site into two separate sites (one containing 15,400 square feet and the other containing 289,607 square feet), and a Site Development request to construct a 10,000+ square foot commercial building on the 15,400 square foot parcel. Regarding the Subdivision request, Mr. Barger indicated that Parcel A would be composed of 6.65 acres and would contain both the Oshman's Sporting goods and Circuit City/T.J. Maxx buildings, as well as all 367 on-site parking spaces and vehicular accessways. He said Parcel B would contain 0.35 acres, and that the Applicant proposes to construct a 10,000 square foot retail building on Parcel B. Mr. Barger discussed Staff's concerns regarding the proposals, particularly the creation of a landlocked parcel if Parcel B were created. He reviewed the contents of the Dublin Subdivision Ordinance, and said Parcel B would not comply with that Ordinance. Mr. Barger identified the following concerns related to the Site Development Review request to construct a 10,000 square foot commercial building on the proposed Parcel B: Regular Meeting PCM-7-165 October 5, 1987 . . _ , • ~ 1. The proposal does not comply with on-site parking requirements as established in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. 2. The proposed 10,000 square foot commercial structure would exceed the 30~ maximum floor area ratio established by the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. 3. A number of design criteria concerns remain which were not adequately addressed to insure that the proposed structure would meet the specific design criteria for new developments contained within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. Mr. Barger indicated that it was Staff's recommendation the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution denying the Minor Subdivision request and denying without prejudice the Site Development Review request for PA 87-096. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Zika, Mr. Tong reviewed several situations wherein difficulties had occurred related to landlocked parcels or easement problems (Pac 'n Save, Woodworks, Great Western Bank). He said the process related to resolving access and frontage problems on landlock properties can be lengthy and cumbersome, and in some cases the situations have only been resolved after several appeal processes and then only at the City Council level. John Hess, Applicant/Representative for First Western Development, said he thought the C.C. & R.'s for the proposed project would adequately address the access problems. He circulated an aerial view of the shopping center and distributed copies of a letter from Gerald A. Barrow, Transamerica Title Services, dated October S, 1987, encouraging the use of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and a Reciprocal Easement Agreement. In his presentation Mr. Hess reviewed each of the findings and conditions contained within the October 5, 1987, Staff Report, stated his conviction that the necessary findings had been met, that the proposed project would meet the intent of the related Ordinances, and requested the Planning Commission approve both the Minor Subdivisian and the Site Development Review requests. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, Mr. Barger discussed the method used in determining the floor area ratio. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Barnes expressed concern that if the proposed structure is built, the area may be overly crowded. She also said she was bothered by the direction the Oshman's building faces. She agreed with Staff's comments that the floor area ratio for the proposed building did not comply with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. Cm. Burnham said he liked the design of the proposed building, but that he was concerned with the failure of the project to comply with the City's codes. Cm. Mack stated her preference would be to have the proposed building located at the other end of the site. Regular Meeting PCM-7-166 October 5, 1987 . . - . • ~ Mr. Hess said he would be willing to work further with Circuit City and the Planning Department in an effort to resolve the differences and asked the Commissioners to continue the project. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Mack, Mr. Barger indicated that the Subdivision application would have to be substantially revised in order to meet the City's Subdivision Ordinance and the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Mack, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was adopted denying the Minor Subidivision request and denying without prejudice the Site Development Review request for PA 87-096. RESOLUTION N0. 87 - 070 1) DENYING THE MINOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST OF PA 87-096, A PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 7.002 ACRE SITE INTO TWO SEPARATE SITES (ONE CONTAINING 15,400 SQUARE FEET AND THE OTHER CONTAINING 289,607 SQUARE FEET) AT 7450 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD; AND 2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST OF PA 87-096 TO CONSTRUCT A 10,000+ SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 7450 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVAR.D In response to comments by Mr. Hess, Cm. Barnes requested that he work directly with the Planning Staff to resolve additional questions or concerns. ~ ~ ~ ~ NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: Future of Tri-Valley Joint Planning Commission Meetings Mr. Tong discussed the original intent of the Tri-Valley Joint Planning Commission meetings, which was to establish direct, informal lines of communication with individual counterparts in other jurisdictions and to informally exchange idas, concerns and comments on matters of mutual interest. He said that in 1986 the direction of the meetings changed somewhat, and the result was a formalized Tri-Valley Technical Advisory Committee which held meetings reviewing policies and plans of the Tri-Valley jurisidications. He indicated that an additional role assumed by the Committee at that time was to provide policy review and policy recommendations. Mr. Tong asked the Commissioners to indicate whether or not they thought the joint meetings should maintain the original intent, include the additional role, take a different role, or be discontinued. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Tri-Valley Joint Planning Commission meetings should maintain the original intent. Regular Meeting PCM-7-167 October S, 1987 _ _ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OTHER BUSINESS None. ~ ~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Burnham asked if the merchants on Dublin Boulevard had raised concern regarding the median strip. Mr. Tong responded that two or three people had expressed concern at the Council level. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Barnes regarding future training sessions, Mr. Tong suggested that it may be appropriate to delay the training until after the fifth Commissioner has been appointed. Mr. Tong advised that Councilmember Hegarty is awaiting a response regarding the next appointment. Cm. Barnes asked what projects may be presented at the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Tong indicated that a Conditional Use Permit request for Margo's Dance Studio on Sierra Lane and a Conditional Use Permit request for All Creatures Veterinary Hospital may be on the next agenda. Cm. Barnes complimented the City on the landscaping and widening of San Ramon Road, and said The Fishery property looks good. She asked if anything could be done about the property in front of The Workbench. Mr. Gailey advised that the Sofa Bed property did not purchase the excess right-of-way in front of their property and so were required to landscape their portion. He said the remainder of the property is privately owned by Mr. Nichandros and not subject to a landscaping requirement. He also said, however, that Mr. Nichandros had been extremely helpful with the City in regards to the San Ramon Road widening project. ~c ~ ~ * Regular Meeting PCM-7-168 October 5, 1987 _ . ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ~ ~ ~ ~ Respectfully submitted, ann' ommission~Ghairperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director ~ ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting PCM-7-169 October 5, 1987