PC 02/24/65 - Laserfiche WebLink

P.3SOLUTION N0. 397 RESOLVED: The City Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the previous Commission recommendation of January 27, 1965, as embodied in the report to the City Council dated January 29, 1965, regarding the location of the Pine Avenue interchange with Route 680, be rescinded; and that the Commission now recommends that the location of Pine Avenue and the Pine Avenue interchange with Route 680 remain as indicated on the Proposed General Plan, dated November 5, 1964. Mr. Pales stated that Mr. Ted Fairfield has raised with the City Council, on February 23, 1965, the question ea to the precise alignment of Pico Avenue between the park and the high school near Sycamore Road. The City Council referred this matter to the Planning Commission for recommendation as to whether this should be changed on the General Plan or considered specifically. Chairman Landon was of the opinion that present thinking should not be too specific with regard to this subject on the General Plan. After dlscuesion by the Commission, upon motion of Commissioner Lozano, seconded by Commissioner Antonini, the following resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of those Commissioners present: RESOLUTION N0. 398 RESOLVED: The City Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council: 1. That the location of Pico Avenue between "Minnie Street" and Sycamore Road remain as indicated on the Proposed General Plan, dated November 5, 1964, since the precise location of this street in this area on the General Plan will not affect the surrounding land uses, the relationship between land uaea, or the basic traffic circulation princlplea embodied in the General Plan. 2. If detailed changes in street location are required at a later date, these changes may be accomplished at the time when detailed development proposals are submitted, without affecting the concepts of the General Plan in this area. Mr. Kenneth Volk asked the Commission if the controversial 300 acres located south of Highway 50 might be designated as a Holding Zone, similar to that of the gravel property located between Pleasanton and Livermore, pending a decision by Alameda County. Mr. Volk read a resolution of the City of Pleasanton, adopted in 1962, in which it was stated that the City would not initiate annexation of the Walker property. Mr. Fales said that the City has lived up to the agreement referred to by Mr. Volk. Mr. Fales clarified the situation of the gravel area being a holding area, and contrasted it caith Mr. Volk's request. He explained that the subject area must be zoned by Alameda County, but the General Plans should coincide. It is legitimate to try to influence the County; this is the reason for referrals by Alameda County to the City of Pleasanton. Mr. Volk presented a sails report to Mr. Fal®s. He said he hoped the problems could be resolved. Chairman Landon said he hoped possibilities could be explored with the Chamber of Commerce Industrial Committee and than meet with Mr. Volk to determine what part the-City could play in. industrial development of Mr. Volk's property. Mr. Volk slid this would be appreciated. Mr. Fa lea read a referral from Mr. Alan F. Grsnt, Alameda County Planning Commission dated February 10, 1965, on the application of Richard L. Irby for an adjustment for-the expansion of a nonconforming retail use (recur for processing of eggs, and sale of eggs and dairy products) in an A-2 District, with two 4'x8' signs which would emcxoach into a Spacial Building Line, at 3780 Stanley Boulevard, Mr. False reviewed the City's Zoning Ordinance in this regard, acrd stated that a poultry farm in this location, if it Caere within the City, would be a permitted use in an Agricul¢ural Dtatrict. Mr. Irby was present and stated Chat he owns 10 acres--a minimum of 5 acres is required by the Zoning t'iruinance. Afto_r discussion by the Commission, upon motion of Ccm:niesiorer Antonin+, seconded by Commissioner Lozano, the following resolution was adopted by v.nanima~s vote of those Commissioners present: