|
RESOLUTION N0, 438
<br />RESOLVED:
<br />That an amendment to Ord. No, 309 rezoning the following
<br />erase be adopted:
<br />All that area bounded by the centerlines of Abbie St.,
<br />First St., Sunol Blvd., Main St., and Bernal Ave.,
<br />from the C-C to the C-0 District.
<br />All that area bounded by the centerlines of Augustine
<br />St., Bernal Ave., Main St., and a line parallel to
<br />Bernal Ave. and 150 feet northerly thereof, from the
<br />C-C to the C-0 District.
<br />All that area bounded by the centerlines of Harrison
<br />St., Augustine St., Bernal Ave., and a line parallel
<br />to Bernal Ave., and 150 feet northerly thereof, from
<br />the R-1 to the C-0 District.
<br />Chairman Landon opened diacuaeion on the application of Federal Sign and Signal
<br />Corp., 950 30th St., Oakland, continued from June 9 and 23, fora Zoning Permit
<br />in order to install a sign at 273 Spring St., in connection with a veterinary
<br />hospital, in a C-C District. Proposed plane and photographs were presented to
<br />the Planning Commiaeion for review, These were met with approval. Chairman
<br />Landon made a motion to adopt the following resolution, which was seconded by
<br />Commissioner Lozano, and adopted by unanimous vote of the Commission.
<br />RESOLUTION N0. 439
<br />RESOLVED:
<br />The Planning Commission, after the required public
<br />hearing, approves the Zoning Permit in order to
<br />install a sign at 273 Spring St., by Federal Sign
<br />end Signal Corp., 950 30th St., Oakland, in con-
<br />nection with a veterinary hospital, in a C-C District.
<br />The next Item on the agenda Dias a.seferral from the Cfty Council .of an appli-
<br />cation of the Planning Commission for en amendment to the Pleasanton General
<br />Plan aeaigning a land use designation to the area between Vineyard and Kottin-
<br />ger Avenues, east of First St., now designated "Held for Further Consideration"
<br />on said General Plan; and appeal of Arthur Carroll, et al, from an Adverse
<br />Decision of the Planning Commission Ln denying an application for an amendment
<br />to Ord. No. 309 rezoning the area between Vineyard and Rottinger Avenues, east-
<br />erly of First St., including property located at 4172, 4188, 4184 Vineyard
<br />Ave., 4250, 4212, 4226, 4232, 4238, 4264, 4262 First St., and 194 Kottinger
<br />Ave., from the R-2 to the C-C District. After some consideration, the Commia-
<br />aion took action recommending to the City Council that the area in question
<br />be rezoned from a C-C District to the C-0 District. In addition it was re-
<br />quested that the staff attempt to arrange a joint study aeeaion with the City
<br />Council to diecuea this matter further.
<br />The next item on the agenda wee a referral from the City Council on the appeal
<br />of Rumble Oil and Refining Co., 1330 Broadway, Oakland, from an adverse decision
<br />of the planning Commission in denying an application for a Zoning Permit with
<br />Site Plan, Architectural and Landscape Approval, in order to construct an
<br />automobile service station at 349 Mein St., in a C-C District. Attorney for
<br />the applicant, Keith Fraser, of Haley, Schenone, Tucker, Birchfield and Smith,
<br />presented two artiste' concepts of possible designs foz a gasoline station.
<br />The Commission indicated that they were pleased with the overall design of Mr.
<br />ShalanGe'e rendering. Judge Schenone salted the Commission for approval and
<br />adoption of the plan. The Conimisaion indicated that they were unable to give
<br />approval at this time unless Humble 011 agreed to submit formally their new
<br />plan either ae s new application or sn amendment to the old application. In
<br />any case the Company would be required to submit an application for a Condi-
<br />tional Use Permit, as well ae an application for a Variance, four required,
<br />in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Attorneys for Humble 011, and
<br />Comppany representatives, conferred briefly to consider this matter. There
<br />was some concern on their part due to the fact that an amendment to their
<br />request would cause them to forfeit certain legal rights which they had under
<br />
|