PC 03/22/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

h. Z-95-12. Ed and Diane Churka Application Cor design review approval to construct an 8,600 square Coot, two-story retail/office building to be located at 780 Main Street. Zoning for the property is C-C (Central Commercial), Downtown Revitalization/Core Area Overlay District. Continue to 4/12/95. L. RZ-94-06. Sie:nature Pronerties Application to amend section 18.96.090 oC the Pleasanton Municipal Code (Temporary Subdivision Signs) to create provisions to aUow more than two off-site directional signs and more than one on-site temporary subdivision sign for advertising residential subdivisions. Continue to 4/12/95. .do Samuel Raber Appeal of a Planning Director determination that the applicant's request to construct a second unit in the Deer Oaks Development, outside of a PUD-approved building envelope, requires an application for a PUD major modification rather than a variance. Mr. Iserson presented the staff report regarding Samuel Raber's request for the Planning Commission to review the Planning Director's determination that construction of a second unit outside of his PUD building envelope requires a PUD major modification rather than a variance. Mr. Iserson advised that Mr. Raber would like to construct a second unit outside of the PUD building envelope. Staff has advised Mr. Raber that a modification to the PUD would be the appropriate procedure. However, Mr. Raber filed a variance application and a conditional use permit. Mr. lserson advised that in conventional zoning areas getting approval to modify the standards would, in fact, be a variance. However, in this case the area is zoned under a PUD, and staff has made the determination that a change in the building standards must be made through a modification of the PUD. In response to Commissioner Hovingh, Mr. Iserson advised that any separate granny flat building constructed outside the designated zoning envelope would require a PUD modification. Chairman Wright noted that previously approved granny flats have met the requirements of being within the building envelope. Chairman Wright inquired of counsel what legal papers were being referred to in the letter from Mr. Raber dated 12/30/94. Mr. Beougher advised the Commission that he filed papers stating Mr. Raber had no cause for action in a suit he filed in the Superior Court. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 March 22, 1995