Laserfiche WebLink
44 <br /> <br /> Mr. Alec Land, representing the property owner, stated that <br /> major oil companies have found the location to be too small, and <br /> independent oil companies could not afford it because the tanks <br /> and the pumps have been removed. He indicated that they have <br /> another piece of land measuring approximately 50,000 sq. ft. on <br /> Sonoma Drive and Sunol Boulevard that could serve as a major gas <br /> station. <br /> <br /> Mr. Jack Bras, 90 Mission Drive, expressed concern regarding <br /> the rezoning of the property to C-S. He stated the project does <br /> not appeal to him and other adjacent property owners. The project <br /> is not fitting to that particular street which is an entrance to a <br /> fairly upscale residential neighborhood. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the <br /> public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver suggested that changing the CUP in the C-F <br /> District to allow auto repair and overhaul might be more <br /> appropriate than classifying this as a gas station, because it <br /> would then avoid some problems with the 60-foot setback <br /> requirement and the service station classification. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes commented that this probably would not belong in <br /> the automotive repair business but rather in a new business that <br /> would require an ordinance change. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler stated that most of the concerns expressed were <br /> with regard to the C-S zoning, which conditionally permits far <br /> more objectionable uses. Based on the Code, this business meets <br /> the definition of a service station, and the Planning Commission <br /> made a logical choice. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver inquired if Council will be redefining service <br /> station use to extend to other service-related auto businesses. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer stated that the site has been abandoned for many <br /> years and that this new business would also provide services which <br /> are needed in that part of the City. He indicated that he was in <br /> favor of the project. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Brandes, and seconded by Mr. Butler, that <br /> Resolution No. 90-11 be adopted, denying the appeal, thereby <br /> upholding the decision of the Planning Commission regarding Case <br /> UP-89-57, the Application of Speedee Oil Change and Tune- <br /> Up/Hammer/Nelson, for a Conditional Use Permit to operate an <br /> automobile oil change and preventive maintenance service facility <br /> to be located on an approximately 0.56 acre site located at <br /> 44 Mission Drive, and Case RZ-89-15, determining that Speedee Oil <br /> Change and Tune-Up/Hammer/Nelson falls under the definition of a <br /> service station consistent with the City Zoning Ordinance. <br /> <br /> -10- <br /> 1-16-90 <br /> <br /> <br />