Laserfiche WebLink
359 <br /> <br /> stated that it seems that with this sort of density the City could keep the allow- <br /> able density within reasonable limits and be compatible with the General Plan. Mrs. <br /> Teixeira does not want to go through the general plan amendment process and feels <br /> this is inappropriate. The City can accomplish low density control by zoning the <br /> property Planned Unit Development residential. Mr. Hirst requested that the ordi- <br /> nance be adopted. <br /> <br /> Mr. David Ash, 615 Orofino Court, stated he left a petition with Council two <br />weeks ago expressing opposition to the medium density zoning, and requesting that <br />Vineyard Avenue be the main access into this development and that Chardonnay Drive <br />be terminated as a cul-de-sac within the development of the Teixeira property. Mr. <br />Ash stated that 2 to 3 units per acre is no problem but if medium density allowed <br />for 8 to 10 units per acre then he strongly opposed it. He advised the terrain lends <br />itself to low density development. He also expressed concern about the safety of <br />children in this area because there is no park and they now play in the only flat <br />area - Chardonnay Drive. He added that Vineyard Avenue is the logical access to <br />this property. <br /> <br /> Mr. James Griffen, 3036 Chardonnay Drive, stated he supports the need for a con- <br />trolled density in the development, and added that he feels Chardonnay Drive is a <br />dangerous street. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hirst rebutted by stating there are no development plans at this time for <br />the property and that Planned Unit Development zoning allows control by the City <br />for appropriate density. He stated that Chardonnay Drive could be made a cul-de-sac. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer stated he had originally voted in favor of this ordinance because <br />Council had discussed low density residential zoning for this property and it was <br />his understanding that it was being zoned low density, which would satisfy the con- <br />cerns of the neighbors as well as his own. He stated he could not support medium <br />density zoning for this parcel. <br /> <br /> After discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Butler, and seconded by Council- <br />member Kephart, that Ordinance No. 1016, approving the application of the City of <br />Pleasanton to prezone two parcels totalling 14.5 acres in the vicinity of 2820 Vine- <br />yard Avenue (eastern terminus of Chardonnay Drive) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) <br />Residential District, be adopted. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: ~ <br />AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Kephart, Mohr, and Wood <br />NOES: Mayor Mercer <br />ABSENT: None <br /> <br />Adoption of Ordinance No. 1026, approvinE the application of the City of Pleasanton <br />to prezone a 21 acre site at the northeast corner of Trenery Drive and Oakland Avenue <br />to the PUD (Planned Unit Development)-Medium Density Residential District <br />(I~.tro. 2-23-82~ 4-Ayes~ 1-Abstained) <br />Mayor Mercer stated that Ordinance No. 1026 was introduced on February 23, 1982, <br />be a vote of 4-Ayes, 1-Abstained, and that it was now in order to adopt the ordinance. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Councilmember Mohr, and seconded by Councilmember Butler, that <br />Ordinance No. 1026, approving the application of the City of Pleasanton to prezone <br />a 21 acre site at the northeast corner of Trenery Drive and Oakland Avenue to the <br />PUD (Planned Unit Development)-Medium Density Residential District, be adopted. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers BUtler, Kephart, Mohr, and Mayor Mercer <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAINED:Councilmember Wood <br /> <br /> 6. 3/9/82 <br /> <br /> <br />