PC 05/08/68 - Laserfiche WebLink

M I N U T E S PLANNING COMMISSION City of Pleasanton May 8, 1968 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Antonini at 8:03 P.M., Wednesday, May 8, 1968. ROLL CALL showed the following: PRESENT: Commissioner Garrigan Gibbs Chairman Antonini Secretary Castro ABSENT: Cosm~issioner Arnold Commissioner Plato APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Upon motion of Commissioner Garrigan, seconded by Commissioner Gibbs, and carried, the minutes of April 24, 1968, were approved as submitted. 4. REVISIONS AND OMISSIONS TO THE AGENDA Chairman Antonini stated that as required by the new Zoning Ordinance, a Board of Design Review and Board of Adjustment would be organized using Planning Commissioners. Chairman Antonini appointed Commissioners to the Boards as follows: Board of Design Review Commissioner Arnold Commissioner Garrigan Commissioner Gibbs Board of Adiustment Commissioner Antonini Commissioner Gibbs Commissioner Plato Chairman Antonini stated it would be up to each Board to appoint a Chairman. Mr. Castro informed the Commission he would submit a schedule of meeting nights for Board meetings for their review. (b) Mr. Castro noted there were three items to be continued: Items Sb (OLD BUSINESS), Sg, and 8a. OLD ,B SU INESS Sa) UP-68-4,_ Donald Silieo. Chairman Antonini opened the public hearing on the application of Donald Siliga, 1000 Merin Street, San Francisco, for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 14.400a to allow the operation of a commercial nursery at 5511 Sunol Boulevard in an I-P District. Mr. Ca.atro noted the conditions of approval on the staff report as were requested by the Planning Commission at the last meeting, including road improvements. The Commission's request for additional employee parking was made a condition; the employee spaces to be provided in an area separate from the customer parking area. Mr. Miller, representing Mr. Siligo, spoke concerning the proposed conditions. Concerning the condition that the covered display area to be erected at the rear of the existing structure be of the same architecture, he questioned if it was necessary as the building was in the rear; however he stated they would accept the condition. Concernin; the condition that the use permit run with the applicant rather than the land, Mr. Miller felt the limit of five years was sufficient protection for the City. Mr. Miller was concerned that because of the partnership involved, in the event something should happen to one of the partners the said stipulation would be unfair. Mr. Miller asked, and the Commission agreed, that the permit run for a period of five years from the date the building permit was issued. Mr. Castro explained that the reason for said stipulation was to protect the City in the event that the partnership dissolved before five years expired, in which case the City could reconsider the use. This was particularly necessary since the proposed use is not compatible in the I-P District. The °5 ~68