Laserfiche WebLink
4y~~$"N~°y CITY of PLEASANTON <br />~ '•/ . ~ <br />6~ <br />~~° Planneng Commission <br />~xrro t <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />Dote : October 17, 1972 <br />Time : 8 ~ 22 P .M. <br />PIQCe; Pleasanton Justice Court <br />then a buffer of multiple zoning shou~d <br />exist between it and the R-l. <br />Mr. Elliott's main concern is the con <br />',figuration of the remaining four acre <br />and how it would blend in with the <br />shopping center site. This is his <br />only concern. <br />Mr. David Madis, attorney for Mr. <br />Elliott also spoke. He indicated that <br />he had handled the original purchase <br />of Units 6 and 7 and subsequent pur- <br />chase from the Stulsaft estate. Mr. <br />Elliott did anticipate that the center <br />remain so and be between 5 acres and <br />14 acres. Their main concern was the <br />properties south of Vineyard Avenue, <br />where street improvements have already <br />been put in. Mr. Elliott is committee <br />by contract to the development of tho <br />properties as they now exist in the <br />multiple zoning - which are the two <br />RM-1500 lots, south of Tawny and the <br />two RM-4000 lots off Touriga Drive at <br />the southwest and southeast corners. <br />It was Mr. Madis 's contention that it <br />is illegal for the City to change the <br />zoning on these parcels since the <br />street improvements are in and con- <br />tracts have been let. <br />Mr. Dienstag confirmed that the shop- <br />ping center site at the time purchase <br />was consummated with Mr. Elliott, was <br />zoned commercial. Regarding the C-F <br />parcel, he requested that that remain <br />in the Study District pending further <br />study. <br />Secretary Castro clarified for the <br />Commission's information that he had <br />cleared with the City Attorney that <br />it is not imperative that Commission <br />stay with the recommended zoning, but <br />that a change in zoning could be re- <br />,e <br />-5- <br />