Laserfiche WebLink
377 <br /> <br /> There being no protests, either written or oral from the public, it <br /> was moved by Councilman Beratlis and seconded by Councilman Spilio- <br /> topoulos that the public hearing, be closed. <br /> <br /> The roll call vote was as follows: <br /> <br /> AYES: Councilmen Beratlis, Gerton, Pearson, Spiliotopoulos and <br /> NOES: None Mayor Reid <br /> ABSENT: None <br /> <br /> Councilman 'Pearson initiated discussion regarding landscape screen- <br /> ing between the two story structures to be placed 15 feet from the <br /> fence that would infringe on the back yard privacy of the existing <br /> single family residents. Discussion also ensued regarding the use <br /> of composition roofs on the dwelling units to be constructed. <br /> <br /> Councilman Pearson stated his objections to the PUD in general as <br /> it would increase the City's growth rate. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Councilman Spiliotopoulos and seconded by Councilman <br /> Beratlis that Resolution No. 71-70, approving the application of <br /> Amador Valley Investors for Tentative Map and Development Plan <br /> Review regarding PUD 69-8. Tentative Map No. 3297, a townhouse dev- <br /> elopment to be located on property described as a portion of Parcel <br /> 2-5, Block 1101, Alameda County Assessor's Book 946, containing <br /> approximately 9.1 acres and generally located immediately south of <br /> Interstate Route 580 and easterly of Tassajara Road, be adopted. <br /> <br /> TIle roll call vote v~as as follows: <br /> <br />AYES: Councilmen Beratlis, Gerton, Spiliotopoulos and Mayor Reid <br />NOES: Councilman Pearson <br />~ABSENT: None <br /> <br /> The City Council also specifically expressed the desire that ~Amador <br /> Valley Investors be informed of the Council's concern with respect <br /> to the two following matters: <br /> <br /> 1. At the time of review of the final development plan, the <br /> Council indicated that they would look carefully for the <br /> manner in which the landscaping and elevation of the buildings <br /> are treated along the southern bounda~! of the development. <br /> The Concern in this area involves these lots within the <br /> proposed planned unit development which will abut a single <br /> family residential area on the south. <br /> <br /> 2. In reviewing the final development plans for this PUD, the <br /> Council indicated tlley also ~ish to limit, if not eliminate <br /> the use of composition roofs on the dwelling units to be <br /> -constructed. <br /> <br />Z:[ATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION <br /> <br />Application of'F,V. Kreske and R.J. Heyers to rezone from the <br />4000 Multiple District to the Public and Institutional District <br /> <br />Book 99, Page 19, containing r . <br /> <br />~r. Fales stated that action on this matter was continued from last <br />weeks" Council' meeting in order to allow all Council members to <br />be present. <br /> <br /> 5. 4-5-71 <br /> <br /> <br />