Laserfiche WebLink
MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION <br />Adoption of Ordinance No. 942., ameBding Section 2-7..0~.(a)., Article. 8, chapter 2, <br /> Title II of the OrdinanCe .Cod.e of the qity of. Ple~santon to condttionallyallow <br /> hardware stores in the CN (Neighborhood Commercial) District <br /> (Introduced 8-26-~0~ 4-A~es~ 1-No) <br /> Mayor Mercer stated that Ordinance No. 942 was introduced on August 26, 1980, by <br />a vote of 4-Ayes, 1-No, and that it was now in order to adopt the ordinance. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Kephart stated that the basis for his dissenting vote on this <br /> ordinance was not because he opposed hardware stores in neighborhood shopping <br /> centers but because this violated the integrity of the Zoning Ordinance and would <br /> set a bad precedent. Councilmember Butler concurred. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Councilmember Butler, and seconded by Councilmember Mohr, that <br />Ordinance No. 942, amending Section 2-7.08(a), Article 8, Chapter 2, Title II of <br />the Ordinance Code of the City of Pleasanton to conditionally allow hardware stores <br />in the CN (Neighborhood Commercial) 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: Councilmember Wood <br /> <br /> Council discussion ensued regarding possible changes to the ordinance regarding <br />uses in the seven zoning categories, and determined to review as considered necessary. <br /> <br />SPECIAL REPORTS <br /> There were no Special Reports presented at this meeting. <br /> <br />REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS <br /> There were no reports of Boards and Commissions presented at this meeting. <br /> <br />REPORTS OF THE CITY MANAGER <br />Reporton Residential Allocation Program Ordinance - Phasi~$ <br /> Mr. Harris presented his report dated September 10, 1980, regarding this matter. <br /> <br /> ~yor Mercer stated this item resulted because of confusion in the intent of <br />Councilmember Wood's motion on August 12, 1980, relative to this matter. <br /> <br /> Council reviewed the staff report in detail. Mayor Mercer stated it was his <br />intent in making his original motion, and is stillhis strong feeling, that a <br />builder be allowed 50 units per year for three years with a maximum of 150 units <br />and that he can come back and continue phasing of the project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Peter Turner, representing the McManus property next to the Youth Sports <br />Park, stated he felt this developer had been sandbagged. He stated that for con- <br />tinuity of planning, a developer needed to develop in an orderly manner, and this <br />could not be accomplished without continued phasing after three years. He stated <br />he felt a developer should be allowed to compete for RAP points in 1983, and <br />should not have to wait until 1985-86 to do so. <br /> <br /> Mr. Frank C. Brandes, Jr., 6889 Corte Sonada, stated he strongly supported <br />Mayor Mercer's motion and interpretation, and that he supported the continuation <br />of phasing for the completion of projects and improvements in an orderly fashion. <br /> <br /> 5. 9/16/80 <br /> <br /> <br />