PC 09/11/68 - Laserfiche WebLink

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the Planning Commission of the City of Pleasanton on the 11th day of September., 1968, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Arnold Commissioner Garrigan Commissioner Gibbs Commissioner Plato NOES: Chairman Antonini ABSENT: ATTEST: Secretary Castro 6. NEW BUSINESS - PUBLIC NEARINGS a. Application of the Planning Commission for an amendment to Ordinance No. 520 to amend Sec. 25.100 (b) to read as follows: "The power to grant variance does not extend to use regulations because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of the zcni:;, regulations is provided by Article 24 (Conditional Uaes); provided, however, that a variance may be granted consistent with the provisions of this ordinance to allow extension, expansion or alteration of a non-conforming use." Chairman Antonini opened the Public Hearing. City Attorney William Hirst, explained that the background of this application arose from requests for rezoning areas within Annexation No. 49 along Santa Rita Road. The City Attorney had received a directive to prepare a memorandum defining what, if anything, could be done by Council to afford flexibility such as this without affecting the rezoning. He wrote the memorandum, recommending that if greater flexibility was desired, a change in language be passed to achieve this, and the variance is to be granted only for non-conforming uses. It does not provide "runaway" flexibility, but only where necessary. He quoted from the Zoning Ordinance, pointing out five findings, which he explained to the Commission. He also added that these findings could not be taken lightly. This variance does provide the necessary flexibility but is not designed to "cut the rug" from under the Zoning Ordinance. The City Attorney feels the variance is more desirable than a Conditional Uae Permit. Also, that the variance will relate only to existing non-conforming uses. The City Attorney further advised the Commission that another amendment which will be coming before them is in regard to the amortization sci.~edule currently in Zoning Ordinance No. 520. He stated that it is not uncomm~i~x that annexation agreements on zoning are determined specifically at :hat time. Commissioner Plato felt that a change in zoning at the time o~ annexation was not justified. Mr. Hirst pointed out Sec. 22.105, ~:hich relates to a non-conforming use and the time span they had to phase out that business in a particular area, which is usually a year. Commissi~rer Plato stated that he felt that properties that are being annexed should have the opportunity, at the time of annexation, to request the area they are in to be zoned for their particular existing business. Upon motion of Commissioner Garrigan, seconded by Chairman Antonini, and carried, the Public Hearing was closed. UPON MOTION OF COMMISSIOiER ARNOLD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GIBBS, THE FOLLOWING P.ESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. RESOLT_'TION N0. 814 WHEREAS, application of the Planning Commission for an amendment to Ordinance No. 520 to amend Sec. 25.100(b) to read as follows: "The power to grant. variance does not extent to vee reg^,l.ations bec:.~se-the.f3eaibility necessary...*.o avoif~. results inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning regulations is provided by Article 24 (Conditional Uses); provided, however, that a variance may be granted consistent with *_Stie provisions of this ordinance to allow ex*_ension, expansion or alteration of a non-conforming use.", has come before this Commission, -3-