PC 060904 - Laserfiche WebLink

have afull-time tutoring business, but added that they had space for five instructors and eight students. She advised that she did not wish to have a crowded facility. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Kameny, Mr. Iserson advised that the number of students and instructors in Condition No. 4 had been provided by the applicant. Although there is adequate pazking, he was concerned about extending the number too much. He suggested that the Commission include the language, "Additional instructors and students maybe approved by the Planning Director upon determination that sufficient pazking exists." THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Maas moved to make the findings for the conditional use permit as listed in the staff report and approve Case PCUP-112, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B of the staff report, with an additional condition that the number of instructors and students may be increased by the Planning Director upon determination that sufficient parking exists. Commissioner Roberts seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: Commissioners Fox, Kameny, Maas, Roberts, and Sullivan. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Arkin. Resolution No. PC-2004-37 was entered and adopted as motioned. b. PDR-352, Curtis and Linda Swartz Application for design review approval to construct an approximately 2,724-square-foot two-story single-story residence with an attached, approximately 1,212-square-foot workshop/gazage to be located at 3552 Vine Street. The subject site is located in the Alameda County unincorporated area. Mr. Iserson summarized the staff report and indicated that City design review approval was a requirement of apre-annexation agreement for City sewer services for the property. The applicants were seeking Alameda County design review and vaziance approval as well, because the property is located in Alameda County. He noted that design review application of this scope would normally be reviewed and approved by staff. In this case, because the setback requirement for the City zoning district that would be most applicable to the site (23 feet front yard setback) was not being adhered to and because it was not with the City limits, it would not be possible to approve a vaziance. Therefore, staff has brought this application before the Commission, which may either approve it with staffls condition that it conform to the setback, or to approve it subject to the applicant's proposal (15-foot front-yard setback). Condition No. 4 requires that the locations of the improvements be adjusted to provide the required 23-foot setback, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 9, 2004 Page 3 of 19