My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 04/24/68
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1960-1969
>
1968
>
PC 04/24/68
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/24/2013 3:19:30 PM
Creation date
7/5/2007 9:47:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/24/1968
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 04/24/68
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
2. That a 6" concrete bumper be installed around the existing driveway divider <br />strips. <br />3. That a 6' redwood community fence be constructed on the rear and remaining <br />side yard property lines. <br />4, Guest parking places be striped and bumper stopped where they are adjacent <br />to landscaped areas. <br />5. That all landscaped areas within driveways and parking areas be protected <br />by a 4" redwood header. <br />6. That all curb openings shall be subject to the approval of the Public <br />Works Director. <br />7. That the elevations shall have the Aztec stone and shingle treatment .as <br />submitted to this Department and the side elevation over the carports shall <br />have some wood trim at the windows. <br />8. That a precise landscaping plan listing plants and materials shall be <br />submitted subject to the approval of the Planning Director. <br />9. That the developer shall provide three street trees along the curb planting <br />strip; the size and type of tree to be subject to the approval of the Planning <br />Department. <br />10. That existing concrete curb and gutter and sidewalk be totally replaced; <br />also that the existing driveway approach be replaced, subject to the approval <br />of the Public Works Department. <br />11. That the developer grant to the City an easement over his portion.. of the <br />joint driveway and obtain for the City from the adjacent property owner an <br />easement over the adjacent driveway. <br />12. That the above easements be completed and transmitted to the City prior <br />to issuance of a building permit. <br />13. That the parking area be graded to drain to the existing catch basin in <br />driveway and be paved with a minimum of 2" a.c. over 5" a.b., with the <br />remainder of the lot graded to drain toward Harrison Street, subject to the <br />approval of the Public Works Department. <br />6. ZONING PERMITS <br />ba.) Z-68-17 Elinor Anderson. <br />Application of Elinor Anderson, 4379 Clovewood Lane, for a Zoning Permit to <br />permit an increase of four children to a total of ten in a day care center, <br />conducted at 4379 Clovewood Lane; request is also for an assistant to help <br />care for the increased number of children. Mr. Caatzo asked the Commission <br />to hear any additional evidence concerning the application, and then either <br />deny the application or continue it to another meeting after the Planning <br />Commission had met with the City Council concerning home occupations. Mr. <br />Castro read a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Nichols, 4372 Muirwood Drive, stating <br />their objection to the expansion of the day care center. Mr. Castro also read <br />a letter from James Nugen, President of the Highland Oaks Improvement Associa- <br />tion, stating their support of any restrictions or recommendations of the <br />Planning Commission concerning the application of Mrs. Elinor Anderson. Mr. <br />Castro also read the report by the Chief Building Inspector, dated 4-17-68, <br />stating that the building did not conform to the Uniform Building Code as <br />a day care center for five children or more. Mrs. Mildred Vallasey spoke <br />for Mrs. Anderson, noting that the children were not allowed upstairs at <br />any time and that there were four outside exits downstairs. She stated that <br />the home was approved by Che County Welfare Department for a maximum of ten <br />children, and she could not qualify for more than ten children with her education <br />and facilities. Mrs. Vallasey stated it would not be a partnersh'ip.betu;e.cA:the <br />two of them, but that she lived with Mrs. Anderson and was only home for a <br />few hours each day, during which time she would help Mrs. Anderson. Mrs. <br />Vallasey noted that all of the children were not there every day full time, <br />rarely on Saturday, and never on Sunday; noting also that children were <br />not allowed in the front yard except when leaving or coming. Mrs. Ted Gill, <br />a neighbor, supported Mrs. Anderson's request. The secretary of the Highland <br />Oaks Homeowners Association also supported the request. One neighbor indi- <br />cated he did not object to the request, but questioned if Mrs. Anderson might <br />4. 4-24-68 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.