CCMIN121674 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. George E. Vranesh, 4560 Eull Court, stated that residents in the area were opposed to the construction of a second floor to this commercial building. He presented a petition signed by 35 homeowners to the City Council, which read as follows: "We the residents of Eull Court, Foxswallow Road and Valley Avenue , in the city of Pleasanton, California, protest the request by Richard Burge for revision of the planned-unit development designation on the property located at the corner of Valley Avenue and Santa Rita Road. It is understood that this revision would permit the addition of a second floor on the above mentioned property. We appeal to you, the city council of Pleasanton, to uphold the responsible decision of the Planning Commission to deny this request for re- vision of the PUD by Mr. Burge. Further, we feel that it is necessary to integrate established residential areas and developing commercial areas. But, they must be integrated, with great care, into attractive, aesthetically pleas- ing developments with respect to the established residential area. This cannot be achieved by authorizing the construction of a commercial area that is non- homogeneous with respect to building heights within itself and the neighboring area, as is the case in this particular commercial development on the North side of Valley Avenue." Mr. Edward B. Quigley, 4586 Eull Court, also expressed opposition to the addition of a second floor to the building in question. Mr. Jack Bras stated that his client was asking for the privilege of building to a height that all other zones enjoy, and he felt that any opposition to the requested addition should have been expressed at previous public hearings regard- ing this matter. He also desired a fuller review of the application by the Planning Commission as well as the City Council. Mayor Mori declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Edgar stated that construction has not begun on the second floor of this building even though the first floor is virtually completed and plans to add a second story are prepared but official approval has not been granted. Council discussion ensued regarding the PUD amendment, previous hearings, sewer capacity, additional office space, economics, type of tenants to occupy second floor, residential setback in the area, and whether or not this item should be referred back to the Planning Commission for fuller review. Mr. Scheidig advised the City Council of steps necessary to refer this matter back to the Planning Commission for further study, indicating that since this was an amendment to a Zoning Ordinance and the Planning Commission had disapproved the request the matter would have to go back to the Planning Commission for recommendation and then come back to the Council for decision. It was moved by Councilman Kinney, and seconded by Councilman Philcox, that the application of Richard Burge for a revision to PUD-73-2, to allow the addi- tion of a second floor to a commercial building now under construction; said commercial building is located on the north side of Valley Avenue approximately 590 feet west of Santa Rita Road, Pleasanton; zoning for the property being C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) District, be referred back to the Planning Commission for further review and recommendation. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmen Kinney,~ Philcox and Mayor Mori NOES: Councilman Herlihy and Councilwoman LeClaire ABSENT: None Mr. Edgar stated this item would be heard by the Planning Commission on January 8, 1975, and would be placed on the City Council agenda of January 13, 1975. Appeal of Richard Burge from an adverse decision of the Planning Commission in denying ap.p!ication for a conditional use permit to allow the expansion of a commercial building located on the north side of Valley Avenue appr~ximatel~ 590 feet west of Santa Rita Road~ for the purpose of accommodatin~ office uses; zoning for the property is C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) District Due to the decision on the previous item, Mayor Mori declared the public hearing open on this matter and continued to the meeting of January 13, 1975, 8:00 P.M., Pleasanton Justice Court. 3. 12/16/74