04/19/62 - Laserfiche WebLink

tion was ~,nan,mnusly adopted: F.x'SOLi1TI0N N0. 171 WHEREAS, the Alameda County Planning Department has referred to the Pleasanton City Planning Commission for an advisory opinion the application of Mr. H.J. Godfrey, 1725 Roae Avenue, for .permission to construct an addition to an existing dwelling in an A-2 District, on a Farcel reduced in area from the required five acres to Your acres, and without frontage on an approved public street; and WHEREAS, the Pleasanton City Planning Commission has reviewed and discussed Mr. Godfrey's application; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Pleasanton City Planning Commission reeosmend to the Alameda County Planning Commission that Mr. Godfrey's application be granted, but that any further development in this area of a magnitude which would re- quire issuance of a building permit be denied unless and until adequate access to the property is provided by a dedicated, approved and improved public street. Chairman Mitchell called upon Mr. Fales, who stated that the Commissioners had each been given a copy of a report on Recreation and Parks Development, and inquired whether they would desire a further study session on this report. Chairman Mitchell recommended putting this matter oa the sgeryda for the meeting of May 3,. and at that time set a date for a study session on the Recreation sad Parks Report. The next iifeat on the agenda was a referral from the City Council of a request by the Chamber of Commerce for review of psrking regulations for Central Business District. Secretary Fales quoted from Section 17.304 of Ordinance No. 309, which contains the City's off-street parking requirements. The Chamber wanted an early decision on a policy dec]aration stating whether or not the City would entertain requests for variances regarding off-street parking in the downto~an area. There is concern to pro- viYle.Selief for property owners, Farticularly on Main Street, in case property owners would wish to remodel or reconstruct buildings. Judge Gale spoke from the audience concerning Livermore's problems in this respect. Commissioner Antonini remarked that, in his opinion, people should be given some encouragement to tear down buildings and build new ones, and the lots are so narrow they couldn't provide off-street parking. Mr. Fales suggested the staff get in touch with Livermore and get copies of their Zoning Ordinance made and distribute them to the Commission. The matter of exceptions in case of hardship was discussed. Chairman i~itc]i~ll inctruct„G t?k:: ~taif to d+s t?x~ ~,:roblem•aud ~com~ bac1.: ai~li :: policy r;tatc.;:nt to th;; Commission. The next rmtter brought before the Coscmmissisn was a presentation by Mr. Fales of an outline for a study re: Expanded and Revised General Plan, Central Bv.sineas District and Civic Center. The City Council and Planning Commission had asked that an outline be prepared and presented to various groups in the community, and also to be a practi- cal kind of a guide for a potential consultant. Chairman Mitchell recommended that the Commission take the outline under advisement for study and put it on the agenda fog the next meeting, N~:y 3. Secretary Fales read an invitation to a dinner meeting of the Esatbay Division of the League of California Cities, Friday, April 27, at the Edgewater, ~^akland, California. Also read was an invitation to the California State Library Spring.Workshop, May 2, 3 and 4, at Rickey's, Palo Alto. Chairman Mitchell brought up the question of the reorganization of the Commission. Secretary Fales announced this should be done the first meeting in May. Chairman Mitchell tendered his resignation. Secretary Fales expressed his appreciation to Chairman Mitchell for his work with the Commission. There being no further business, on motion of Coimnissioner Antonini, seconded by Com- missioner Lsndon, and unanimously approved, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m., to meet again on May 3, 1962, at 8:00 p.m. -3-