09/26/57 - Laserfiche WebLink

'~ _- PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON COUNTY OF ALAMBDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA MINUTffi The meeting of the City Planning Commission was called to orderat the City Hall on September 26, 1957 at 8:00 P.M.~ Acting Chairman Wetherby presiding. Roll Call: Preaenti Commissioners, Hartles Hanifen~ Trowbridge, Wetherby and Wharton Absent: Commissioner Oxsen The minutes of September 12 and 19th were approved as forwarded on motion of Com+ miasioner Wharton seconded by Commissioner Hanifen. Acting Chairman Wetherby called for the scheduled public hearing on the Condition- al Zoning Permit request by James C. Robinson for use of the property at 625 Maio Street as a aanitoriam. A letter wan read from the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce opposing the application because they did not believe it would be in keeping with sound planning of the retail area concerned. Inasmucjr as Mr• B3obinsoa could not be present Mr. Cole of Francis A• Russell Real Estate Co• of San Francisco repres- ented him. He discussed the proposed use of the property stating they would esploy From 12 to 15 people; reiterating Mr. Robinson~s desire to occupy the premises by October 1st in order to begin the necessary remodeling; and stating that the long range plans included a two story addition in the rear and a foyer for professional men. He stated that the real estate agency had checked on Mr. Robinaon~a financial and character references and found them to be excellent, also that Mr. Robinsonia fathers a registered M•D.~ anticipated joining his son during the initial stage of the sanitoriumNs development. Mrs. Robinaon~ who is a trained nurse would be e~w ployed there and they also anticipated the use of several interns Hader the super- vision of a local M•D. Cormissioner Wharton questioned the selection of thin part- icular site rather than one in a quieter area. Mr. Cole stated that a site adjac- ent to a metrolpolitan areas yet in a smaller, friendly community where the patients would be able to get around with the necessity of becoming involved in heavy traffic would be the most desirable. He stated that the majority of the people would be capable of walking needing only musing attention or physical therapy. Mr. Kolb presented a list of rerchants and property owners in the surrounding area whop as stated on the petition they had signed (a copy of which is attached and herewith made a part of these minutes) did not oppose the location of a sanitorium for med- ically convalescent patients at 625 Main Street. The Planning Consultant reprea- entative~ Mr. Bill Rugg stated that although he had no strong objections he did not believe that the proposed site wan proper for the use of a sanitorium. Comm. issioner Wharton stated he felt a Kuieter residential district would be better however Mr. Ko111 pointed out that the ability of the patients to mix with the local people greatly helped their mental attitude. Mr. Masonheimer pointed out that nei- ther the proposed Livermore zoning ordinance nor the one adopted by E1 Cerrito per- mitted witted such a use for property in this type of areas and that the proposed Pleasanton ordinance would not either. Mayor Cairo representing the City Council was questioned as to whether the City Hall would eventually ,be moved to Kottinger Villages leaving the present site available for commercial development. He replied that there were no immediate plans for such a move. Acting Chairman Wetherby moved that the Public Hearing be closed. Commissioner Trowbridge seconded the motion which was unanimously passed. Further discussion followed on whether the proposed use met the requirements of Section 2.22 of the Interim Zoning Ordinance. Commiss» inner Hanifea moved and Commissioner Harile seconded the diction that the Condition- al Zoning Permit be granted. Roll Call showed the following vote: AYES: Hartle ani Hanifen• NOESi Trowbridge Wharton and Wetherby. Acting Chairman Wetherby in- structed the applicants that they could appeal the decision to tJie City Councils according to the terms of the Interis Zoning Ordinance, within seven days from this date. On advice of Attorney Struthers Resolution X14 stating that the permit was denied in view of the fact the application did not meet the requirements of Sub. 2 or 5 of Section 2.22 of the Interim Zoning Ordinances was passed u~auiously on