10/08/69 - Laserfiche WebLink

,~.,, ~• Chairman Garrigan opened the Public Hearing. The Planning Director demonstrated preliminary renderings of the multiple areas as proposed by the applicant's architect. The Chairman then read the recommendations as proposed in the staff report, concluding by agreeing that a study should be conducted of the Sunol Boulevard area. Mr. C. W. Langeberg, the applicant, was present and concurred with the staff report and agreed to delete the commercial and the RM-4000 Districts as proposed in his application. Chairman Garrigan then requested that with applicant's approval, would like to continue this application to the meeting of October 22, 1969, pending receipt of Sunol area study from the staff. This was agreeable to the Planning Director. A Mrs. Marilyn Walters of 399 Mission Drive, expressed an opinion that she feels all property owners in Mission Park should have been notified of this application not just the residents on Mission Drive. Commissioner Gibbs was concerned about the heavy density and wondered about the overall density and how the check and balance system can be worked out with the developer. There were additional people in the audience who required clarification on the original plan set for the Mission Park area. The Planning Director replied that Mission Park was approved originally under a PUD, which subsequently expired, consequently, at this time there is no definite plan for the area. Upon motion of Commissioner Pons, seconded by Commissioner Antonini, and carried, it was moved to continue this application to October 22, 1969, pending staff submission of the report on the Sunol area study. b. Sec. 2.109, Zonintt Ordinance No. 520 Application of the Planning Commission for an amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 520 to amend Sec. 2.109 - Prohibit location of accessory structures in frontyard a@tbacks. Chairman Garrigan opened the Public Hearing. The City Attorney explained to the Commissioners that this was a relatively routine proposal, just a matter of clearly defining the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. The City Attorney recommended its adoption by the addition of Subsection 'd' modified to read, "No accessory structure shall be located in a frontyard in an R District." A Mr. John Price, 5094 Crestwood Court, had a question. He had noticed several developments where there were enclosures in the frontyards and wondered if this was affected by the amendment. The reply was no, as these specific developments were approved under the PUD, which allowed flexibility of design. Mr. Price then inquired if a homeowner could enclose his frontyard on his own. Mr. Castro replied that the individual would require approval of a variance to do this. There being no further questions or discussions, upon motion of Commissioner Gibbs, seconded by Commissioner Antonini, and carried, the Public Hearing was closed. Upon motion of Commissioner Antonini, seconded by Co®isaioner Pereira, and carried, the following resolution was adopted unanimously. EESOLUTION N0. 956 WHEREAS, the application of the Planning Commission for an amendment to Sec. 2.109, Zoning Ordinance No. 520, has come before this Commission, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Pleasanton hereby approves said amendment by the addition of Subsection 'd' to Sec. 2.109, to read as follows: "No accessory structure shall be located in a frontyard in an R District." -2-