CCMIN022481 - Laserfiche WebLink

355 Valley Road, immediately westerly of Amber Lane, the property is zoned R-I-20,000 (Single-Family Residential) District as originally submitted and as modified by Resolution No. 81-33 accepting park fees rather than acreage, be adopted. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Kephart, and Mayor Mercer NOES: Councilmembers Mohr and Wood ABSENT: None ~doption of Ordinance No. 962~ approvin~ the applicatiqp of..Reynolds and Brown for development plan approval for the 60-acre site located immediately south of Johnson Drive and about 700 feet west of Hopyard Road for the most southwesterly pgrtlon of the property~ the property is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) District (Intro. 2-10~81~ 4-Ayes~ 1-No) Mayor Mercer stated that Ordinance No. 962 was introduced on February 10, 1981, by a vote of 4-Ayes, 1-No, and that it was now in order to adopt. the ordinance. Councilmember Mohr requested that Condition No. 29 - "the maximum building floor area within a site shall be 40% while the overall building floor area of all struc- tures on the subject property shall be a maximum of 33%", be placed asCondit~on No. !, because of its importance. Councilmember Wood requested that identifying location numbers be required on back doors as well as front doors for easy identification of location by public safety personnel. Mayor Mercer reiterated his position in opposition to this matter, that he is concerned about the wide blank spaces and the unknown problems that might be asso- ciated with these areas that cannot be envisioned at this time. He stated he did not feel he had enough answers to vote in favor of this project or any other project in this area. He added he had met several times with the developer and still did not feel sufficiently informed to make an intelligent decision. Mayor Mercer stated that only minimal planning had been submitted at this point. He urged that final decision on this matter not be made until after the joint study session with the Planning Commission relative to industrial development in the northern quadrant of Pleasanton, scheduled for February 25, 1981. Councilmember Kephart stated that after careful review of this matter he con- curred with Mayor Mercer, and would be changing his vote to oppose the adoption of this ordinance. Councilmember Butler stated he will support the approval of this application for the same reasons discussed at the last meeting; because of the need for industrial development and because he feels it is important to reaffirm Council's position favoring bringing jobs to the City and broadening the tax base. He stated he did not feel that partial approval of the development is a shortcoming, in fact it is a strength; it is limited in scope and the developer cannot go beyond that. He added that the total coverage can be controlled by conditions. After further discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Wood, and seconded by Councilmember Butler, that Ordinance No. 962, approving the application of Reynolds and Brown for development plan approval for the 60-acre site located ~rm~ediately south of Johnson Drive and about 700 feet west of Hopyard Road for the most south- westerly portion of the property, the property is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Develop- ment) District, with Condition No. 29 changed to be Condition No. 1, and Condition No. 33 amended to add street numbers to back doors, be adopted. 6. 2/24/8i