PC 06/26/68 - Laserfiche WebLink

word in the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Struthers continued, was to determine if the use is lawful. Mr. Campbell explained that according to the adopted plan lines for Division Street, the City would eventually require forty feet of frontage of Mr. Chet Richards' property. Mr. Richards noted that less than 40 feet would be left of his property---an amount that would not be substantial to retain the present business. Chairman Antonini felt that the City should buy the 40 feet of frontage from Mr. Richards now and allow him to purchase new property. Mr. Amaral, representing Mr. Richards, spoke briefly noting that the company was a valid non-conforming use before either Ordinance 309 or Zoning Ordinance 520 were adopted, Mr. Amaral also submitted a petition with 22 signatures of people in the area who did not abject to the trucking com- pany. After further discussion, UPON MOTION OF CHAIRMAN ANTONINI, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ARNOLD, AND CARRIED, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 1968, TO ALLOW A THOROUGH STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT AS TO THE SIZE OF THE CURRENT OPERATION. Sc.) V-68-18 LGunder Senum Chairman Antonini opened the public hearing on the application of Gunder Senum, 4381 Mirador Drive, for a Variance to Section 2.100 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an encroachment of three feet into the front yard setback at 735 Palomino Drive in an RM-25 District. Mr. Castro presented the staff report with one condition. The applicant was present and concurred with the report and conditions. Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbs, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, and carried, the public hearing was closed. Upon motion of Commissioner Plato, seconded by Chairman Antonini, the following Resolution was adopted by unanimous vote: RESOLUTION N0. 792 WHEREAS, the application of Gunder Senum, 4381 Mirador Drive, for a Variance to Section 2.100 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an encroachment of three feet into the front yard setback and eight feet into the rear yard setback for a 4-pier, located at 735 Palomino Drive in an RM-25 District, has come before this Commission, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the above application be approved subject to the following condition: 1. That the permit is granted for the property as described in the application and any attachments there- to, and as shown on the attached plan, labeled Exhibit A. 6. ZONING PERMITS a.) Z-68-34 D & V Builders Next was the application of D & V Builders, 6000 Telegraph Avenue, Oakland, for a Zoning Permit with Site Plan and Architectural Approval to allow a temporary one-year parking strip approximately 60 feet by 300 feet located in Tract 3004. Mr. Castro presented the staff report with conditions. The applicant was present and concurred with the conditions. After discussion concerning the material to be used in the parking area, UPON MOTION OF COMMISSIONER ARNOLD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIOMER PLATO, AND CARRIED, IT WAS DETERMINED TO APPROVE ZONING PERMIT Z-68-34, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the permit is granted for a period of one year for that property as described in the application and any attachments thereto, and as shown on the attached plan, labeled Exhibit A. 2. That a landscaping plan be submitted to this Department for approval. 3. That the applicant meet with the recommendations and approval of the Public Works Director. 4. That some type of dust-control be used on the parking area subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. 6b.) Z-64-28. First Pleasanton Investors Application of First Pleasanton Investors for approval of a new fence design, instead of the originally approved design under Zoning Permit Z-64-28 (PUD), dated November 12, 1964, for that development known as Pleasanton Meadows. Mr. Oakes stated that Mr. Galli asked that a large red jumbo brick be used in place of the split-faced red brick as proposed in Mr. Oake§'~ submittal. 3. 6-26-68