Laserfiche WebLink
~g~~~sAN~°y <br />~~ ~~~. <br />~,: o <br />0 <br />.o <br />CITY of PLEASANTON <br />Planning Commission <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />~CtB February 23, 1971 <br />Time : 8:0o PM <br />PIG C8: Pleasanton Justice Court <br />A summary of the situation to date was <br />given by Acting Secretary Aiello. The <br />issue involved is the southeast corner of <br />Bernal Avenue and Foothill Road. <br />The rezoning procedure is to establish pre- <br />cise zoning districts in line with the <br />General Plan amendment. It was the Council' <br />recommendation that the area should be <br />~c~ned 5.8 ac. C-N, 1.0 ac. 0 and 10.65 RM-4, <br />Ito be under the P.U.D. provisions. <br />Mr. Russell Roessler, representing Castlewoo <br />Enterprises, the owners of the property unde <br />consideration, spoke. <br />Mr. Roessler requested that the Commission <br />stay with their original recommendation and <br />zone the RM acreage in the RM-25 instead of <br />the RM-4 (PUD), as recommended by Council. <br />He spoke of the expenses tax-wise and of'. <br />their cooperation with the City and the <br />community over the years. <br />In the spirit of being good neighbors and <br />good citizens, they are willing to accept a <br />reduction in their commercial area, however, <br />they cannot accept the reduced density of <br />RM-4000. He then spoke of the validity of <br />answering a housing need which McKeon Con- <br />struction is now fulfilling. <br />Mr. Chuck Seymour, 492 San Gabriel Court, <br />spoke expressing his view that the only goo <br />thing resulting from the Foothill Road <br />General Plan amendment was Council's sugges <br />lion that the multiple be in the RM-4 (PUD) <br />district. He felt there is too much multi- <br />ple development slated for Foothill Road. <br />He spoke of multiples slated for the Macco <br />Corporation/Meadowlark Dairy property, the <br />Stoneson property, etc. <br /> <br />- 5 - <br />