Laserfiche WebLink
.- <br />-., <br />There were several resolntiona offered, which are as follows: <br />1. Commissioner Garrigan offered a resolution that the application <br />be approved as submitted by the applicant. That resolution <br />failed to receive a second. <br />2. Commissioner Antonini offered a resolution that the application <br />as submitted by the applicant be approved subject to the following <br />modification; that the C-H/0 parcel be revised to include only <br />the 0 District. This offering received the following vote: <br />Ayes: Coaniesioner Antonini <br />Commissioner Garrigan <br />Hoes: Coamisaioner Arnold <br />Commissioner Gibbs <br />Chairman Plato <br />3. Chairman Plato offered a resolution reaffirming the Co®ission's <br />previous recommendation; further, that the Planning Commission <br />offers no additional recommendations at this time. This <br />Resolution Ho. 850 passed by the following vote: <br />Ayes: Coaavisaioner Arnold <br />Coamissioner Garrigan <br />Commissioner Gibbs <br />Chairman Plato <br />Hces: Commissioner Antonini <br />The resolution that finally received a majority vote by the Commissioners is as <br />follows: <br />BBSOLIITION H0. 850 <br />WHEREAS, the application of &. G. Craig for Qualified <br />Investments, Inc., to rezone from an A <br />(Agricultural) District to a C-H (Commercial <br />Neighborhood) District, P (Public and <br />Institutional) Matrict and an 0 (Office) <br />District, that property know as Lot #1039, <br />=tact #2953, or more commonly known as the <br />southwest corner of Aopyard Road and Lea Poaitas <br />Boulevard containing approximately 5.2 acres, <br />has been referred by City Council back to the <br />Planning Co®iaeion for fnrther consideration, <br />WHERHAS, the Planning Commission has held another <br />Public Hearing to discuss said referral from <br />City Council and has esemined the pertinent <br />maps, drawings and documents and finds that <br />one or more of the following conditions do <br />exist: <br />1. That the proposed amendment will be contrary <br />to the spirit and intent of the General Plan, <br />2. That the proposed amendment is not in the <br />public interest and general welfare, <br />3. That the proposed amendment creates a lees <br />equitable condition for the cos®unity than now <br />prevails. <br />HOW, THBBEFORE, BB IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City <br />of Pleasanton hereby reaffirms its recommends- <br />. tion to City Council for denial of said zone <br />change amendment as petitioned; further, that <br />the Planning Commission offers no additional <br />recommendations at this time. <br />- 7 - <br />