My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 02/28/68
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1960-1969
>
1968
>
PC 02/28/68
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/24/2013 3:18:43 PM
Creation date
7/5/2007 9:55:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/28/1968
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 02/28/68
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
Santa Rita Road and Stanley Boulevard. After further discussion, UPON MOTION <br />OF COMMISSIONER ARNOLD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PLATO, AND CARRIED, IT WAS <br />DECIDED TO APPROVE ZONING PERMITS Z-68-12 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FREE-STANDING <br />SIGN, AND Z-67-82 FOR SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL OF A SERVICE <br />STATION, TO BE LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF SANTA RITA ROAD AND STANLEY BOULEVARD <br />IN A C-T DISTRICT. <br />6d.) Z-68-10, Bernard Gerton. <br />Next was the application of Bernard Gerton for a Zoning Permit to allow a <br />sign to be attached flat against the building at 706 Main Street, for <br />approximately 4 months. UPON MOTION OF COMMISSIONER PLATO, SECONDED BY <br />COMMISSIONER GARRIGAN, AND CARRIED, IT WAS DETERMINED TO APPROVE ZONING <br />PERMIT Z-68-10 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: <br />1. That said sign (2 feet by 8 feet) shall be approved for a period <br />not to exceed 4 months, ending June 28, 1968. <br />Sa.)Tract 3004, D & V Builders. <br />Next was the request of D & V Builders for Tentative Map Approval of Tract <br />3004, continued from 2-14-68, with Planned Unit Development containing <br />approximately 140 acres located on the west side of Hopyard Road between <br />the Pleasanton Canal and the Arroyo Mocho. Mr. Cal Holland gave a brief <br />description of what was proposed in the tract, stating that the linear park <br />proposal would benefit more people. Mr. Holland explained that the fence would <br />be varied in texture and line; also that a low, two-rail fence would be <br />constructed along the park property line to separate homes from the park. <br />There was discussion about the type of housing proposed for the two higher <br />density areas, near the school and near the entrance to the tract. Average <br />lot size is approximately 7,500 square foot lots. The Commission indicated <br />they did not wish to give approval to the tract without first reviewing the <br />conditions suggested by the Planning Department and City Engineering Department_ <br />After further discussion, UPON MOTION OF COMFIISSIONER PLATO, SECONDED BY <br />CHAIRMAN ANTONINI, AND CARRIED, THE COMMISSION APPROVED TRACT 3004 IN <br />PRINCIPLE, WITH A FINAL DECISION TO BE MADE WHEN PROPOSED CONDITIONS HAVE <br />BEEN REVIEWED. <br />Roll Call vote as follows: <br />AYES: Commissioner Gibbs NOES: Commissioner Arnold <br />Chairman Antonini Commissioner Garrigan <br />Commissioner Plato <br />9.) Referral from Alameda County <br />(a.) 816th Unit. H. W. Kolb: to rezone from the A-2 District to the C-1 <br />(Retail Business District) approximately 24.8 acres located at the south- <br />westerly quadrant of the Interstate Route 580 - Foothill Road Interchange, <br />Pleasanton Planning Area. After considerable discussion, upon motion of <br />Commissioner Plato, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, the following Resolution <br />was adopted by unanimous vote: <br />RESOLUTION N0, 761 <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pleasanton <br />has reviewed said zoning petition, pertinent maps, <br />and documents and finds that one or more of the fol- <br />lowing conditions do exist: <br />1. That the proposed amendment will be contrary <br />to the spirit and intent of the County of Alameda <br />and the City of Pleasanton's General Plan; <br />2. That the proposed amendment is not in the public <br />interest and general welfare; <br />3. That the proposed amendment creates a less <br />equitable condition for the immediate area than <br />now prevails; <br />4. That the proposed commercial acreage exceeds <br />the future demands for commercial land based on the <br />anticipated population for the immediate surrounding <br />area, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.