CCMIN042683 - Laserfiche WebLink

· 189 It was moved by Councilmember Brandes, and seconded by Councilmember Wood, that Resolution No. 83-158, denying the appeal of the City Council, and approving a minor modification of case PUD-81-32 for a 61 unit townhouse development on the north side of Vineyard Avenue opposite Amador Court having to do with reorientation of units, increase in size of units and minor architectural changes, subject to the following conditions: (1) that the development shall be substantially as shown on the develop- ment plan dated February 14, 1983 for case PUD-83-5 (minor modification to case PUD- 81-32) on file with the Planning Division; and (2) that approval of this modification is subject to all conditions of Ordinance No. 1013 (which approved case PUD-81-32), be adopted. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Mercer, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Butler NOES: None ABSENT: None Councilmember Brandes stated that when a minor modification is made by the Director of Planning the City Council has the right to have that change reviewed which sometimes requires the item go back to the Planning Commission. He stated he did not feel Plan- ning Commissioner Doherty understood the rules and procedures. He stated that Council is following the correct procedures and he requested this information be transmitted to Commissioner Dohepty. Councilmember Mercer stated that the comment that City Councilmembers were home watching T.V. was inappropriate and suggested that his sche- dule as Councilmember left very little time for leisure activity. Mayor Butler stated he would call Commissioner Doherty to explain the appeal procedure of Council. Appeal by the City Council of a decision of the Planning Commission approving a tentative subdivision map to subdivide an approximately 21~ acre site into 52 lots located at the eastern terminus of Parkside Drive north of the Pleasanton Sports Park. Zoning for the pro erty iS R-1-7500 '(Single-family Resident~af) District (Contd. Open from 4~1.2f.~.3~ " Mr. Harris 'presented his report (SR 83:181) dated March 30, 1983, regarding this matter. Councilmember Brandes stated he had requested this appeal in order to obtain addi- tional information regarding a connection to the West Las Positas area that was not included in the tentative map. Mayor Butler declared the public hearing open on this item. Mr. Peter Turner, Attorney representing Mr. T. K. McManus, stated that the map indicated that any potential crossing of the Arroyo would be in the next phase of development and will be fully discussed at that time. He stated that Harvey Court has been designed for that purpose. Ms. Sharpell Michelotti, 7873 Olive Court, representing herself and the Pleasanton Girls Soccer Association, asked that consideration be given to a bicycle and pedestrian entrance into and across the Arroyo. She stated that vehicle entrance from this area to the Sports Park would also be very wise because of traffic generated on Hopyard Road. Mr. Brad Hirst, 2456 Minivet Court, stated he concurs with Ms. Michelotti, and feels that access from the east end is very important, especially if emergency service is needed in the Sports Park. He encouraged consideration of vehicular as well as recreational access into the Sports Park area. A petition was presented to the City Clerk on April 11, 1983, signed by 23 resi- dents of Virgil Circle and Kevin Court, which read as follows: "We, the residents of the Parkside residential development, strongly protest the proposal that a street con- nection be considered between the Hacienda Business Park and Parkside Drive". 5. 4/26/83