My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN051590
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
CCMIN051590
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:34 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 11:45:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
240 <br /> <br /> The roll call vote was as follows: <br /> AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Butler, Mohr, Tarver and Mayor <br /> Mercer <br /> NOES: None <br /> ABSENT: None <br /> ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer asked staff when the annexation process would <br /> start should the prezoning be approved in conformance with the <br /> General Plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that prezoning is one of the last steps in <br /> completing the annexation application. He stated that it takes <br /> some time to draw the official boundary map and that the request <br /> could be submitted to the Local Agency Formation Commission <br /> (LAFCO) by June. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer inquired if the NSSP is due to come out this <br /> month and if annexing the property and prezoning it PUD would give <br /> the property owners the right to develop a project outside the <br /> NSSP. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said that the NSSP is expected to be completed this <br /> month. He added that if the property is annexed and prezoned PUD, <br /> the developers would have to submit a development plan for <br /> Council's approval before any subdivision or development could <br /> take place on the property. The development plan would probably <br /> not be processed until the annexation is completed, by which time, <br /> the NSSP should have been completed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes commented that since the PUD will come before the <br /> Planning Commission and the Council for approval, there will be an <br /> opportunity then to assure that certain situations and potential <br /> problems brought up by the neighbors will be properly addressed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that he felt the prezoning was premature. <br /> He added that he would prefer these properties to come back as <br /> part of the NSSP and not raise any expectations about what the <br /> development density should be on those properties. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked staff if the prezoning designation, whether <br /> PUD - Medium Density or Agricultural, both of which conform to the <br /> General Plan, would have any bearing on how the development plan <br /> would be presented. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that if the property is prezoned PUD, the <br /> developer would only have to propose a development plan. If it is <br /> prezoned Agricultural, the developer would have to submit an <br /> application to rezone the property to PUD in addition to <br /> presenting a development plan, both of which could be approved at <br /> the same Council meeting. <br /> <br /> - 10 - <br /> 5-15-90 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.