Laserfiche WebLink
m. PUD-85-8-SD-1M OR 9/5: 10) This item was discussed later in the agenda. <br /> <br /> n. Accept the report of actions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning <br /> Commission. (IR96:09) <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Dennis, Michelotti, Mohr, Pico, and Mayor Tarver <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />5, lVrF_~TFING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC <br /> The~ were no speakers. <br /> <br />6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATYERS <br /> <br />Item 6a <br />(1) Reo_uest for the City Council to consider whether to nrocess an amendment to the Land <br />Use Element of the Pleasanton General Plan. independently of the City's General Plan <br />I.l_nd_ate. to ch3n~e the !and use designation of the annroximatelv nine acre EvanieHcal Free <br />Church of Plen.~anton site from Public and I~titutional to Medium Density Residential (2-8 <br />Ilu/acl and Parks and Recreation !and uses. The church site is a_nnroximatelv 9.04 acres <br />in size and is !oc_3ted at 6900 Valley Trnik Drive. The _nro_nert_v is zoned R-fl-6.S00 (sin?le- <br />family residentjail District. (SR 96:28) <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that a request had been made from Braddock and Logan to withdraw this <br /> item and a letter had been received from the Homeowners Association agreeing to the <br /> withdrawal. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvex indicated there has been tremendous interest in the community about this <br /> property. lie felt the question was whether Council was going to change the land use <br /> designation of public and institutional land. He wanted to deal with that now. The question <br /> tonight is whether Council is interested in considering a General Plan amendment for the <br /> property. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr indicated she had received calls from the developer and the Homeowners <br /> Association and it seems like there may be a compromise that could be acceptable. She felt this <br /> continuance was being requested in order to work on the compromise. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvet wanted to protect the remaining properties that are designated public and <br /> institutional, even if the residents come to an agreement with a developer. He felt this was <br /> <br />02/06/96 3 <br /> <br /> <br />