My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN100284
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
CCMIN100284
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:50:09 AM
Creation date
11/9/1999 11:38:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
285 <br /> <br /> RZ-84-8, Application of the City of Pleasanton to prezone the approximately 8 acre <br /> site located on the north sideofVineyardAvenue oppositeMavisDrive to the PUD <br /> ~Planned Unit Development)-Medium Density Residential'District or any other zoning <br /> district consistent with the General Plan <br /> <br /> Consider Adoption of Negative Declaration <br /> Mr. Harris presented his memorandum dated September 25, 1984, stating that on <br />August 14, 1984 Council introduced an ordinance prezoning the approximately 8 acre <br />site located on the north side of Vineyard Avenue opposite Mavis Drive to the PUD <br />(Planned Unit Development)-Medium Density District. At that time nobody appeared <br />in opposition to the proposed prezoning. ~'~en this matter was scheduled for adop- <br />tion on August 28, 1984, several people spoke in opposition to the property being <br />prezoned Medium Density Residential. For this reason, Council reintroduced the <br />ordinance to prezone the property to the "S" (Study) District. At that time the <br />applicant in this case, John Caroline, was not present at the meeting. At the meet- <br />ing of September 11, 1984, Mr. Caroline addressed Council concerning the change in <br />the prezoning. As a result of issues raised by Mr. Caroline at that meeting, <br />Council directed the staff to resubmit this matter for consideration at the meet- <br />ing tonight. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing open on the application and the nega- <br />tive declaration. <br /> <br /> Mr. John Caroline, 4487 Pleasanton Avenue, requested this property be prezoned <br />to PUD-Medium Density Residential District rather than Study District, as introduced <br />at the Council meeting of August 28, 1984. He stated he has a proposal before the <br />City for a project on this parcel and would like to proceed as soon as possible. <br /> <br /> Mrs. Donna Graves, 419 Mavis Drive, speaking on behalf of Mavis Drive residents, <br />stated they are not against annexation of the property to the City but are against <br />the Medium Density Residential District zoning. She stated there are many traffic <br />problems on Vineyard Avenue. She stated that because of the traffic problem and <br />also the fact that the developer has not seen fit to come to the residents with any <br />of his plans for development, Mavis Drive residents would like to see this property <br />placed in a Study District for further review. She suggested that Vine Street be <br />opened up to alleviate the traffic congestion. She requested Council to place this <br />property in a Study District for four to six months, and to consider zoning it for <br />single family homes as a compatible transition from high density on the west to low <br />density on the east side of this parcel. She added that the neighbors are willing <br />to work with the developer relative to his.development plans. <br /> <br /> Mr. Frank Be!ecky, 892 Madeira Drive, Speaking on behalf of the Vintage Hills <br />Homeowners Association, stated this group supports the position of the Mavis Drive <br />residents. He added that Vintage Hills Homeowners Association is not against annexa- <br />tion but are opposed to Medium Density Residential District zoning. <br /> <br /> Mr. Joe Davis, 447 Mavis Drive, stated he concurred with the comments made by <br />Mrs. Graves. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing closed <br />on the application and the negative declaration. <br /> <br /> Considerable Council discussed ensued regarding the merits of a review of the <br />entire area of undeveloped land as well as already approved projects in the Vineyard <br />Avenue area. They discussed the fact that LAFCO would not accept the proposed annexa- <br />tion application unless prezoning is designated, and expressed the desire that this <br />land be annexed to the City to have better control of its land use. <br /> <br /> 9. 10/2/84 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.