My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN040192
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN040192
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:03 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 10:09:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
location of the school. If the cul de sac changes in Village I, <br /> that would come back with Village I proposal. If that requires re- ~-- <br /> evaluation of the specific plan, it would happen at that point <br /> rather than proposing it tonight. <br /> <br /> It was moved byMr. Tarver, seconded by Ms. Scribner, to deny <br />the application without prejudice and to have the developer come <br />back with a new plan reversing the school and park; propose houses <br />around the cul de sac; opening some kind of pathway to the school <br />and park for pedestrians and bicycles; examine the potential of a <br />footbridge that was discussed as a change to the Specific Plan. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Tarver and Scribner <br />NOES: Councilmembers - Butler, Mohr, and Mayor Mercer <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Council finds that the proposed rezoning to the PUD - LDR, <br />MDR, and PI district and the proposed development plans for Village <br />Two and Village Three are consistent with the Stoneridge Drive <br />Specific Plan and the Pleasanton General Plan; and makes the PUD <br />findings for the proposed development plans for Village II and <br />Village III as set forth in the Planning Commission staff report. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Butler, and seconded by Ms. Mohr, that <br />Ordinance No. 1554 be introduced, to be read by title only and <br />waiving further reading thereof, approving Option 2 of the staff <br />report and denying Village I as proposed, because it is not in <br />conformance with the Specific Plan; suggesting reorientation of the <br />school and the park; approving Village II and Village III, subject <br />to the conditions set forth in the staff report, with Village I to <br />go back for further review by the citizens and developer for future <br />approval. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Butler, Mohr, and Mayor Mercer <br />NOES: Councilmembers - Tarvet and Scribner <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />4. ADJOURNMENT <br /> <br /> There being no further business the special meeting was <br />adjourned to the joint meeting of the City Council, Planning <br />Commission and Design Review Board at 8:15 p.m. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer and Councilmember Butler abstained from the joint <br />meeting due to conflicts of interest. <br /> <br />PEj~OEZIDR0~CITY CLERK ..... <br />04/01/92 Page 8 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.