My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN050388
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1988
>
CCMIN050388
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:51:11 AM
Creation date
11/3/1999 11:36:33 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.
/
23
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
295 <br />other things in this PUD but also make them meet condition 8 which requires <br />them to meet all of the parking requirements on site. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Councilmember Brandes to approve the application of Val <br />Strough including the six bays, subject to all conditions set forth in the <br />staff report. <br /> <br /> The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br /> After further discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Butler, and secon- <br />ded by Councilmember Wilson, that Ordinance No. 1361, to be read by title only <br />and waiving further reading thereof, approving PUD-BS-2-2D-1M, application of <br />Val Strough Auto Village for a major modification to an approved development <br />plan for an existing automobile sales and service complex to provide for ex- <br />pansion of facilities including approximately 4,075 sq. ft. of additional <br />sales/service area, parking, signage, and related improvements {without the <br />six service bays requested), located at 4341 Rosewood Drive, subject to condi- <br />tions set forth in Staff Report 88:167, be introduced. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Butler, Mohr, Wilson, and Mayor Mercer <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br /> <br /> Council discussion ensued regarding denial of the six bay service area <br />being without prejudice so that the dealer could come back within a year with <br />a modified plan, and concurred that the application could come back with an <br />amended plan within one year. <br /> <br />item gc <br />Resolutions Making Application to LAFCO and Agreeing to the Exchanqe of Prop- <br />erty Tax Revenue and Initiating Prezoning for Annexation No. 123 (Bridgman <br />Development} <br /> Mr. Elliott presented his report (SR 88:200) dated May 3, lg88, regarding <br />this matter. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing open on this item. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fred Hempy, representing Richard Picard, 5226 Foothill Road, stated <br />Mr. Picard has applied for annexation in lg82 but LAFCO denied the application <br />advising that Mr. Lafayette's land would have to be included in the annex- <br />ation. He stated that Mr. Picard still wants to be annexed to the City and <br />would like to be included in the application of Bridgman Development. <br /> <br /> Mr. Walker advised that a letter from Mr. Picard, requesting annexation to <br />the City, was received this date, too late to be included in the request by <br />Bridgman Development Company. Mayor Mercer stated this request could be pro- <br />cessed at the next meeting and would still get to LAFCO by the time the Bridg- <br />man Development request is considered. <br /> <br /> Mr. Larry Bridgman, representing Bridgman Development, stated he has pur- <br />chased the property, made application for annexation, and would like to pro- <br />ceed as soon as possible. He advised that he plans to building single-family <br />R-6500 homes on the property. He stated the property is currently accessible <br />by three streets and there would be no access onto Foothill Road. <br /> <br /> - 13 5-3-88 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.