My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN111511
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
CCMIN111511
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/20/2012 1:59:13 PM
Creation date
1/20/2012 1:59:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/15/2011
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN111511
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
vineyard and convert it into a restaurant. It is also a proposal to locate on additional home site nearby. <br /> This went through the process then and was approved, but because of the economy, has not moved <br /> forward. They are typically able to extend these types of projects if they expire for economic reasons <br /> through the minor modification process and it would not come to Council. When staff noticed the <br /> project, they received two phone calls and two emails with concerns from neighbors with similar <br /> concerns raised the first time the project went through. Staff discovered people were concerned with <br /> the fact that the restaurant would serve alcohol, there would be increased traffic associated with the <br /> restaurant, it would pose a security concern and a general concern there would be a commercial use in <br /> that predominantly residential neighborhood. <br /> Mr. Dolan said the Planning Commission and Council were able to work through those issues and with <br /> a set of conditions, were comfortable in approving it. Staff did not spend a great deal of time adding to <br /> conditions. They updated things based upon laws changing, and he displayed a graphic showing the <br /> existing sales office, the 36-acre parcel which is predominantly vineyard, and he said the total acreage <br /> between the proposed restaurant site and home site would be 2.5 acres. <br /> Mayor Hosterman also noted that since that time, the City has approved two additional restaurants <br /> serving wine which has worked out very well. Mr. Dolan agreed and said it was with the knowledge of <br /> those and their cumulative effective that some conditions placed on this project came into effect. <br /> Mr. Dolan displayed the previous site plan and modest site plan change related to concerns expressed <br /> by residents. <br /> Councilmember McGovern questioned if the applicant owns the 2.5 acres and asked if they were in a <br /> conservancy. Mr. Dolan said there is a conservation easement over the entire property which limits <br /> what can be done. He said 2.5 acres can be used for these types of uses and a condition of approval <br /> has been agreed upon by the applicants. <br /> Mr. Dolan displayed a photo of the second floor, and said a small 380 square foot kitchenette was <br /> added next to the dining area which helps to improve operations since they are serving meals on two <br /> floors. When square footage is added, he noted there is a minor impact to the elevations but it does not <br /> change the perception of the building. <br /> Mayor Hosterman questioned if the Council was simply considering extending the approval for two <br /> years. Mr. Dolan said yes, but there is also a minor change. When they got into the details of designing <br /> the construction drawings, their engineers told them there was a better way to do their basement which <br /> resulted in it being enlarged or elongated which provides better support. The additional square footage <br /> would simply be used for storage and not increase the size of the restaurant. He said there are a few <br /> minor interior changes which would not have any effect on the exterior. There is also a requirement that <br /> the landscape plan be more specific. There are several conditions of approval which were carried <br /> forward with a few additions to reflect the current City practice and some updates in regulations; <br /> however, staff supports extending the project. <br /> Councilmember Sullivan referred to page 5 of the staff report under Green Building and asked why it <br /> states "the development is not subject to the City's green building ordinance." Mr. Dolan said one <br /> reason is that the building is already built and is simply being relocated, and secondly, there is a <br /> threshold of 20,000 square feet, and this building does not meet that. <br /> Councilmember Sullivan noted this is also approving a lot or pad for a new house, which Mr. Dolan <br /> confirmed should be covered by the same rules everyone in town is subject to. Mr. Fialho clarified the <br /> law is both the Green Building Ordinance and State standards. When the project comes forward, it <br /> would be applied consistently with new development. Councilmember Sullivan asked that this be <br /> included as a condition, and Mr. Dolan agreed a condition could be added. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 4 of 5 November 15, 2011 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.