Laserfiche WebLink
~sA"T° C TY of PLEAS TO <br />qy$ y I AN N <br />Y ••~ • <br />.~ <br />'~~*° Planning Commission <br />~l.M fD <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />Dote : March 27, 1973 <br />Time : 8:08 P.M. <br />PIaCe; Pleasanton Justice Court <br />It was determined that the applicant <br />is presently gainfully employed, and <br />this business, until it increases in <br />volume, will be a side-line business. <br />He has no intentions of advertising <br />on his car, nor will he utilize tele- <br />phone solicitation. His main source <br />of advertisement will be through the <br />newspapers. <br />Senior Planner Harris indicated that <br />the staff still feels as they did <br />originally, which would be for denial <br />of this request. <br />Commissioner McLain stated that this <br />is the type of occupation which is <br />practically unenforceable. The main <br />objection to a home occupation as <br />noted in the City's codes is that it <br />would change the character of a neigh• <br />borhood, and this is one of those <br />occupations which fall in a "gray" <br />area. If his business does pick up <br />sufficiently to become his main source <br />of income, he would probably fill a <br />room with keys. <br />A motion was offered by Commissioner <br />McLain, seconded by Chairman Pons, <br />granting the appeal of Mr. Kuhnke, <br />subject to the following conditions: <br />1 - That any noticeable traffic in- <br />crease in the neighborhood would be <br />sufficient grounds for cancellation <br />of the permit. <br />2 - That no external advertising be <br />allowed either on the home proper, <br />or on his car. <br />Commissioners Carrigan, Pereira and <br />Wood voted against it, and the motion <br />was defeated. <br />-4- <br />