Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3. MEETING OPEN FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE TO ADDRESS THE <br />PLANNING COMMISSION ON ANY ITEM WHICH IS NOT ALREADY ON THE <br />AGENDA <br /> <br />There were no members of the audience wishing to address the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />4. CONSENT CALENDAR <br /> <br />a. P11-0836, CTR Motors <br />Application for a Conditional Use Permit to operate an automobile <br />warehouse for wholesale and internet sales at 2118 Rheem Drive. <br />Zoning for the property is PUD-I (Planned Unit Development Industrial) <br />District. <br /> <br /> The application was withdrawn. <br /> <br />5. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS <br /> <br />a. P11-0709/P11-0707; Dave Cunningham <br /> <br />Applications for Design Review approval to replace the approximately <br />482-square-foot single-story house located at 205 Neal Street with an <br />approximately 1,844-square-foot two-story residence; and for Variances <br />from the Pleasanton Municipal Code to: (1) reduce the front yard setback <br />from the required 23 feet to 20 feet to accommodate the new house; <br />(2) allow one required off-street parking space to be located in the required <br />front yard setback; and (3) allow tandem parking. Zoning for the property is <br />R-1-6,500 (One-Family Residential) District. <br /> <br />This item was continued from the November 9, 2011 meeting. <br /> <br />cused himself due to a conflict of interest. <br /> <br />Natalie Amos presented the staff report and described the scope, layout, and key <br />elements of the proposal. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank inquired if staff had a recommendation. <br /> <br />Mr. Dolan replied that the subsequent memorandum did not make any change to st <br />recommendation because staff received the revised plans two days before the packet <br />was to be distributed, <br />digest and analyze the changes to determine whether or not the changes merited a <br />change in recommendation. He indicated that staff would not typically change its <br />recommendation unless there was some change in circumstance. He noted that at the <br />th <br />November 9 meeting, there was a discussion about the floor area ratio (FAR) on the <br />lower lot as it were a separate lot, although everyone knows it is not, and the crude <br />measuring stick was whether or not the applicant was trying to put too much house on <br />this area. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 30, 2011 Page 3 of 19 <br /> <br />