Laserfiche WebLink
2. The location and topography of the proposed <br />zoning petition is such that it may be <br />within the natural area of development of <br />the City of Pleasanton; <br />3. The proposed zoning petition could conform <br />in extent and purpose to the General Plan <br />of the City of Pleasanton; <br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT <br />RESOLVED: that the Planning Commission of the City of <br />Pleasanton recommends to the City Council that <br />the City advise the County Planning Commission <br />that the property as described by the McLain <br />Development Company be continued pending a <br />General Plan review by the City of Pleasanton <br />in cooperation with Alameda. County for the area <br />north of Highway 50. <br />10. REFERRALS FROM CITY COUNCIL. <br />Concerning the City Council referral for reconsideration of the Planning <br />Commission decision regarding RZ-67-12 and RZ-67-16, Mr. Castro stated that <br />staff had no additional comments or changes. Mr. Castro gave a brief report <br />comparing densities between R-2 and RG-25 Districts, stating there was very <br />little difference in densities. After further discussion, upon motion of <br />Commissioner Arnold, seconded by Commissioner Gibbs, the following Resolution <br />was adopted by unanimous vote: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 750 <br />WHEREAS, the referral of the City Council for reconsidera- <br />tion of the rezoning of D & V Builders' property <br />listed in RZ-67-16, has come before this Commission, <br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT <br />RESOLVED: that the Planning Commission does hereby reaffirm <br />their proposal of January 10, 1968, to the City <br />Council, that the existing zoning of the area <br />located north of Black Avenue between Harvest <br />Road and 420 feet plus or minus west of Crestline <br />be endorsed, with the modification that the parcel <br />between Crestline and Harvest be changed from <br />RG-15 and RG-25 to RG-25 zoning. <br />12. MATTERS FOR INFORMATION OF THE COMMISSION. <br />Mr. Castro informed the Commission that it had come to the attention of the <br />Planning Department that many homeowners were doing business in their home <br />without a permit. Mr. Castro asked for an opinion whether such home occupa- <br />tions should be required to get a permit. The Commission agreed that the City <br />should have control. <br />There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, upon <br />motion of Commissioner Carrigan, seconded by Chairman Antonini, and carried, <br />the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P. M., to meet again on Wednesday, January <br />31, 1968. ~ \ <br /> <br />