|
1. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for
<br />approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of
<br />a building permit.
<br />2. All parking areas and the access thereto shall be
<br />paved to City standards.
<br />The next item on the agenda was the application of Duke T. Bonds, Sr., 524 Neal St.,
<br />for a Zoning Permit with Site Plan and Architectural Approval in order to construct
<br />a porch in connection with a multiple dwelling located at 4420 Pleasanton Avenue,
<br />in an RG-15 District. Mr. False, in giving the staff report, stated that the pro-
<br />posed porch addition does not violate any of the Zoning Ordinance requirements, and
<br />is actually a cover for the existing patios. The staff recommended granting the
<br />Zoning Permit. After consideration by the Commission, upon motion of Commiaei.oner
<br />Lozano, seconded by Commissioner Antonini, the following resolution was adopted by
<br />unanimous vote of those Commissioners present:
<br />RESOLUTION N0. 352
<br />WHEREAS, the application of Duke T. Bonds, Sr., 524 Neal St., for a
<br />Zoning Permit with Site Plan and Architectural Approval in
<br />order to construct a porch in connection with a multiple dwelling
<br />located at 4420 Pleasanton Avenue, in an RG-15 District, has come
<br />before this Commission;
<br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
<br />RESOLVED, Chat the above-named Zoning Permit with Site Plan and
<br />Architectural Approval ie hereby granted,
<br />The next item on the agenda was Consideration of Lene Use; Proposed Annexation No.
<br />36 (Arnaudon Property, Sunol Blvd,) Mr. Falea read the report on the annexation
<br />study of the property by Livingston and Blayney, dated September 18, 1964, in which
<br />it was recommended that: (1) The west parcel should be zoned I-P (Industrial Park).
<br />(2) The east parcel should be zoned R-G (Garden Apartments) with the annexation
<br />agreement to stipulate that the planned unit development procedure be followed and
<br />that the density not exceed five unite per gross acre. Lee Amaral, Attorney repre-
<br />senting William Marsh, stated that the proposed freeway poses a problem, and the
<br />owner believes that five units per acre would not be feasible as multiple dwellings.
<br />He requested the Commission consider she assignment of industrial park land use to
<br />the 19-acre east parcel, after freeway construction, ae well as to the 5-acre parcel.
<br />Mr, Falea recommended asking Mr. Blayney for a further report, and would inquire
<br />into the problem of the buffer between residential areas and the property of the
<br />east parcel. Following discussion, Chairman Landon continued the matter to the
<br />meeting of October 28, 1964.
<br />The next item on the agenda was a Preliminary Review; Preliminary Subdivision Map,
<br />Tract No. 2639 (Rose Ranch). Mr. Falea summarized the progress to date on this
<br />proposed development including: (1) Adoption of Ordinances No. 398 and 399, effect-
<br />ive Cctaber 21, 1964. (2) The continuation of Application for Rezoning, No. RZ64-10
<br />until such time ae preliminary subdivision plena are submitted and considered by the
<br />Planning Commission. (3) Presentation of ground rules for development of a Tenta-
<br />tive Subdivision Map for the subject tract, which designated a minimum overall
<br />density of four families per acre; 6,500 aq.ft. minimum single-family residential
<br />Lot size; no more than 257, of the total number of dwelling unite be apartments,
<br />and no more than 50~ of these be RG-15 density. (4) Consideration that the pro-
<br />posed regional shopping center site is satisfactory, but acl:nowledgr_ then. other
<br />possible sites are available within the plamming area.
<br />Mx. Ted Fairfield explained the proposed zoning and arrangement of the subject tract;
<br />deacribinh in some detail the cul-de-park feature. He then presented to the Commis-
<br />sion a density tabulation ehowi.ng a total calculated density of 1254 units, and
<br />stated that the average lot size in the R-1 District would be 7,340 sq.ft., with a
<br />minimum lot size of 6200 eq.ft.--approximately one-third of the lots being less than
<br />6,500 aq.ft. Upon inquiry by Mr. Fales regarding percentage of spread of Lot sizes,
<br />Mr. Fairfield replied that these figures were not yet available, Mr. Fairfield said
<br />that the longer streets would contain lots of 6200 to 6500 cq.ft. Mr. George Oa?ces
<br />was present in the audience and entered into the discussion by explaining that the
<br />cul-de-sacs and cul-de-parks could contain th= larger lets; and in response to a
<br />question said he proposed to construct a 1350 eq.ft. house on a 6200 aq.ft. lot.
<br />
|