Laserfiche WebLink
467 <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that he did not want to put more FARs in <br />the area. He expressed concern about the traffic coming very <br />close to the maximum of the standards set and would like see this <br />tied to the completion of the two interchanges. He indicated that <br />he would not support the project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes mentioned that he concurred with Mr. Tarver's <br />concerns, but that he feels the project meets those concerns and <br />even goes beyond requirements in some areas. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer stated that he agreed with Mr. Brandes. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Brandes, and seconded by Ms. Mohr, that <br />Ordinance No. 1439 be introduced, to be read by title only and <br />waiving further reading thereof, approving PUD-81-30-48D-22M, the <br />application of Prudential Insurance Company of America for major <br />PUD modification and design review approval to construct a five- <br />story, 225,000 square foot office building on an approximately 15 <br />acre site located generally in the area bounded by Hacienda Drive, <br />Gibraltar Drive, and Baker Drive (Site 7D and a portion of Site <br />55C, Hacienda Business Park), subject to the conditions of <br />approval set forth by the staff. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Butler, Mohr and Mayor Mercer <br />NOES: Councilmember Tarver <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Item 6d <br />AP-89-18, Appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission which <br />denied approval of Case PUD-89-9, the application of John and <br />Patricia Hunt for development plan approval to subdivide into two <br />lots an approximately 1.2 acre site located at 2373 Martin Avenue <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 89:462) regarding the <br />matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing open on the appeal. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ed Polson, a Pleasanton attorney with offices at 6140 <br />Stoneridge Mall Road, stated that at the suggestion of the former <br />City Attorney and with the support of the City Engineer and a <br />senior member of the Planning Department, the appellant, Mrs. <br />Patricia Hunt, settled litigation regarding a deferred street <br />improvement agreement in the Mohr-Martin Avenue area, with the <br />understanding and belief that she would be entitled to a lot-split <br />of her property. Mrs. Hunt is not a developer; and although she <br />was required to pay some of the improvement costs, she was not <br />entitled to and did not receive any benefits resulting from the <br />development. He requested Council approval to divide the property <br />into two parcels. <br /> <br /> -10- <br /> 11-7-89 <br /> <br /> <br />