|
Chairman Landon opened the public hearing on the application of Duke T. Bonds, 524
<br />Neal Street, fora Variance from Section 8.500, Ord. No. 309, in order to allow con-
<br />struction of a duplex on property located at the southeast corner of Pleasanton Ave.
<br />and Division Street, in an RG-15 District. Mr. McNesr was present in the audience
<br />and spoke on behalf of Mr. Bonds. The: being no further comments from the audience,
<br />it was moved by Commissioner An.~nini, seconded by Commissioner Lozano, and carried,
<br />that the public hearing be closed. Mr. False, in giving the staff report, stated
<br />the Variance is not for any specific site plan. The lot area ie 6,030 aq.ft., where-
<br />as 7,500 aq.ft. axe required. Lot width is 67 ft., whereas 70 ft. are required.
<br />However, a Zoning Permit has been applied for concurrently, depending upon granting
<br />of the subject Variance. This was an existing lot of record prior to the adoption
<br />of the Zoning Ordinance or the rezoning to RG-15. If the Variance La not granted,
<br />the property owner will, in effect, be denied the use of the property. His only
<br />recourse would be to combine the subject property with adjacent property. In con-
<br />sidering the Zoning Permit in conjunction with the Variance, the situation is
<br />further compounded by the fact that the aide yard requirement is 8' on one Bide with
<br />a total of 15', whereas proposed ie S' on one Bide with a total of 12'. Also, four
<br />parking spaces are required, whereas three are proposed; and access to parking is
<br />insufficient: t:ne 20-ft, or two 10-ft. lanes are required, whereas one 14-£t. lane
<br />is proposed. The size of parking spaces is proposed ae 150 aq.ft., whereas 180 sq.
<br />ft. are required. In addition, Division Street ie 28 ft. wide from property line to
<br />property line and from curb to curb. Tuet to put sidewalk on Division St. would
<br />require five feet additional right-of-way and would reduce the lot area by 335 sq.ft.
<br />An additional 86 aq.ft. would be needed to make the proper corner. This leaves a
<br />lot area of 5600± aq.ft. If Division St. is widened in the future to a 60-ft. right-
<br />of-way, it would require 1158 eq.ft. from this Lot, and the net area of the subject
<br />lot would be 4870± aq.ft. and the building setback would be affected. The staff
<br />recommends disapproval of the Zoning Permit application because the yard and parking
<br />requirements as shown on the plans submitted do not meet the ordinance requirements.
<br />Consideration for the widening of Division Street should be made,.aad this will un-
<br />doubtedly make the proposed plane unworkable without rather substantial variances
<br />which the staff does not recommend. The following suggestions are made: The applic-
<br />ant (1) Reapply with a new plan showing conforming yards and parking with an allow-
<br />ance fora 16-foot widening on Division St. wlth a 20-foot corner radius. (2) Sub-
<br />mit a property survey with any future application. (3) Provide more information on
<br />the site plan submitted with any future application. After consideration by the
<br />Commission, it was moved by Commissioner Antonini, seconded by Commissioner Lozano,
<br />and carried, that the aforementioned application of Duke T. Bonds be continued to
<br />the meeting of March 25, 1964, with the permission of the applicant.
<br />Chairman Landon then opened the public hearing on the application of the Planning
<br />Commission for an amendment to Ord. No. 309 in order to provide zoning districts
<br />for the area of Annexation No. 31, Amador Valley Annex "D". There being no comments
<br />from the audience, it was saved by Commissioner Lozano, eeconded by Commissioner
<br />Antonini, and carried that the public hearing be closed. Following staff recommenda-
<br />tion, and consideration by the Commission, upon motion of Commissioner Rega, seconder
<br />by Commissioner Antonini, the following resolution was unanimously adopted by those
<br />Commissioners present:
<br />RESOLUTION N0. 279
<br />RESOLVED:
<br />The City of Pleasanton Planning Commission does hereby recommend
<br />to the City Council amendment of Ordinance No. 309 in order to
<br />provide zoning districts to the area included 1n Annexation No.
<br />31, Amador Valley Annex "D", ae follows:
<br />1. For the area of Tract No. 7.591, Pleasanton Valley,
<br />approved February 20, 1964:
<br />a. C-Li - + 5 scree at the southeast corner of Hopyard
<br />Road and Black Avenue.
<br />b. R^.-?.5 - + 3.1 acres ez the eo~ith aide of Black Avenue
<br />i.rr~ac:iately adjacent on the east to the C-ti District.
<br />c. :Z-1 - 7R~e remaining area of Tract 4io. 2591.
<br />2. For all of the remaining area of Annexation No. 31, assign-
<br />ment of the A (P.griculture District) zoning is recommended.
<br />
|