CCMIN100284 - Laserfiche WebLink

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