My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
04/19/62
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1960-1969
>
1962
>
04/19/62
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/7/2013 2:45:44 PM
Creation date
7/9/2007 10:43:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/19/1962
DOCUMENT NAME
04/19/62
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
RESOLUTION N0. 169 <br />WHEREAS, the application of Mr. Elmer D. White for Zoning Permit pursuant to <br />Section 18.800, Zoning Ordinance No. 309, to operate a garage business <br />(minor repairs) at 835 Main Street, in a C-C (Community Commercial) District, <br />having come before this Commission April 19, 1962, under Ordinance No. 309, <br />as amended, the Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: <br />1. The Planning Commission does find as follows: <br />a. Notice has been given as required by law. <br />b. The proposed land use will comply with performance standards <br />section of Ordinance No. 3og. <br />2. The Zoning Permit is hereby granted. <br />3. A copy of this resolution shall be sent to interested parties. <br />In the above connection, Secretary Fales brought before the Commission s draft of a <br />Zoning Permit Performance Standards Approval form, which he devised to accompany a <br />completed Zoning Permit application in line with a suggestion by Councilman Long. <br />Copies of the proposed form were presented to the Commission for consideration. Chair <br />man Mitchell asked City Attorney Struthers for legal opinion on this. Mr. Struthers <br />said he approved of it, and in his opinion it: would help educate people in the details <br />of Ordinance No. 3og, and legally cut off the argument that a person didn't know of <br />the existence of the Ordinance. Also this form would tend to force a disclosure of <br />operating procedures ahead of time before an enterprise gets started, thereby aiding <br />in enforcement problems. Nr. Fales stated this form would put the burden oP proof on <br />the applic~At, not the City. A discussion by the Commnission followed and, on motion <br />by Commissioner Landon, seconded by Commissioner Lozano, and the vote of Aye by Com- <br />missioners Antonini, Landon, Lozano and Mitchell, and No by Commissioner Rega, the <br />following resolution was passed: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 170 <br />WHEREAS, the Secretary to the Planning Commission has prepared a form for use <br />in conjunction with application for a Zoning Permit where Performance <br />Standards Approval is required as a condition to the issuance of a Zoning Permit; <br />and <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this form and is +af the opinion <br />that its use will simplify the administration of Ordinance No. 309, <br />as amended, the Zoning Ordinance; <br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT <br />RESOLVED, that the Pleasanton City Planning Commission approve future use of <br />said form by the staff in cases where Performance Standards Approval <br />is required in connection with the issuance o£ a Zoning Permit, with the under- <br />standing that the use of said form will be only supplementary to any and all <br />provisions of Ordinance No. 309. <br />A motion was made by Commnissioner Rega to amend the above Resolution by requesting the <br />staff give flzrther consideration to clarification of the opening paragraph. The motio <br />died for lack of a second. <br />The next item on the agenda was a referral from the Alameda County Planning Department <br />regarding an application from Nr. Herbert J. Godfrey, 1725 Rose Avenue, for a proposed <br />addition to a single-family residence in an A-2 District on a parcel reduced in area <br />from the required 5 acres to 4 acres and which parcel has no frontage on an approved <br />street. This matter was held over from the meeting of April 5. Secretary Fales said <br />he had been informed by the Alameda County P]snning Department that Mr. Godfrey wished <br />to add as much space to the existing building as exists at the present time. Rose <br />Avenue is an unapproved and unimproved street. This property has no access to any <br />public street except by an easement, and thereby is twice removed from a public street. <br />Therefore, it was the opinion of the staff that granting of a variance in this instance <br />could create a future blight in this area and that no development should occur except <br />on a public street approved, dedicated and improved. This property is 700 feet west <br />of the City limits, and in terms of the Genersl Plan this is not considered a rural <br />area. If this property were inside the City 1;a7i.ts, Ordinance No. 309 would not <br />allow the proposed addition. Mr. Godfrey spoke from the audience stating he merely <br />wished to remodel the existing house, in which he has lived for 9 years, adding <br />2 bedrooms, 1 bath and a utility room, and presented a sketch of the property and his <br />proposal to the Commission for tiZeir inspection. After considerable discussion, on7 <br />motion by Commissioner Tendon, sECOnded by Commissioner Antonini, the following resolu- <br />-2- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.