PC 08/14/68 - Laserfiche WebLink

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Planning Commission of the City of Pleasanton hereby recommends that said General Plan amendment be continued for six months. b. Planning Commission Application of the Planning Commission of the City of Pleasanton to determine the nature and extent of an alleged non-conforming use at that property known as 1045 Division Street in an R-1 District. This matter was continued from June 26, 1968, and was referred to the Planning Co~maiasion by the City Council. Chairman Antonini opened the Public Hearing. City Attorney William Hirst spoke first, and stated thaC it is, legally, a non-conforming use. However, he further found that there was no authority in the present zoning ordinance to close the use out in one year, as suggested. There were two methods of handling the situation, (1) Planning Commission has the authority to require owners to cut back use to the extent that it had been expanded both since the adoption of the ordinance, or, (2) go to court to obtain an injunction. An objection to maintaining the business at its present location was raised by: Mrs. Elvers Wicksteed 1038 Division Street Mrs. Wicksteed requested that the letter containing the list of signatures of individuals who objected to conduction of business at said address be read. The objection is due primarily to noise and dust. Chairman Anto- nini explained to Mrs. Wicksteed that the Planning Commission was only authorized to consider the non-conforming use of the business. Commissioner Plato felt that it was a quarrel between neighbors on the question of a nuisance operation. Attorney Hirst also stated that he did not feel tte Planning Commission had any jurisdiction in this matter. Commissioner Plato further stated that he felt that if Mr. Richards has outgrown his present quarters, he should go and obtain larger quarters for his business. Public Works Director Alan Campbell stated that it was never the intention of anyone to put an individual out of business, and this matter first came before the City Council on the noise/nuisance factor. It came before the Planning Commission only on a zoning matter and to establish the degree this business was in violation with existing zoning. The City Council only requested a recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding its non-conforming use. Upon motion of Commissioner Garrigan, seconded by Chairman Antonini, and carried, the Public Hearing was closed. UPON MOTION OF COMMISSIONER GARRIGAN, SECONDED BY CHAIRMAN ANTONINI, THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. RESOLUTION N0. 801 WHEREAS, application of the Planning Commission of the City of Pleasanton to determine the nature and extent of an alleged non-conforming use at that property known as 1045 Division Street in an R-1 District, has come before this Commission, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Planning Coaimisaion return this request to City Council on the matter that said business is a non-conforming use of the property under present zoning. Further, it is the Commission's findings that due to a lack of information at this time, it ie impossible to determine the nature of the expansion of the existing trucking business. c. RZ-68-5. Grace M. Peters by J. Bras Application of Grace M. Peters, 4653 Third Street, for an amendment to Ordinance No. 520 to rezone from R-1 (Single Family) to RM-1500 (Multiple Family) at 4653 Third Street. Chairman Antonini opened the Public Hearing, and it was the opinion of the Planning Depatsment that this application should be approved according to conditions listed on staff report. Another petition was received objecting to said rezoning. The new petition contained nine more names. In a study, Mr. CBatrl. noted that it was found that there was considerable multiple-family units in that area and based on these findings, the application should be approved. Mr. Jack Bras, representing Mrs. Peters, stated that he felt it was feasible to rezone the area to go multiple. - 3 -