My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
06
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2016
>
060716
>
06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2016 11:38:04 AM
Creation date
6/1/2016 9:41:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
6/7/2016
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
06
Document Relationships
06 ATTACHMENT 3
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2016\060716
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
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
Commissioner Allen: I'll make a motion, but before I do, let's go to Jack's comment <br /> about the corral and getting a read on how people feel about that. Or, a question is <br /> whether there's a precedent in doing that with other properties that have this kind of <br /> zoning. <br /> Commissioner Balch: Is there a precedent to sub-zone? <br /> Weinstein: In my mind, it sort of relates to moving to the nuisance issue that we often <br /> talk about in the context of downtown residential uses where we often require a deed <br /> restriction for people buying new houses in downtown to let them know that they are <br /> living in a place that is subject to a lot of traffic, noise and a lot of commercial activity. <br /> This site has been zoned for these uses for a very long time and designated for these <br /> sorts of uses since the creation of the specific plan at least in 1999. Theoretically <br /> anybody that moved to nearby neighborhoods after 1999 would be aware there is a <br /> limited amount of residential development allowed in this part of the specific plan area <br /> but the areas outside of that residential footprint could be used for agricultural uses <br /> which could include corrals, livestock, chickens and so forth; rural uses. So in my mind, <br /> there's a lot of different ways to parse this issue. It could be problematic to restrict <br /> agricultural uses just in one part of the site just because somebody doesn't want to look <br /> at corrals and doesn't want to hear roosters crowing in the morning. That said, it's a <br /> relatively small part of the site that's being requested for that restriction so, you know, <br /> can a land owner find other areas of the parcel that has corrals and has chickens? <br /> Probably. Going back to the basic principles of land use planning and really <br /> understanding what future land uses are going to be, that result from a specific plan like <br /> this, which is the result of a comprehensive planning effort, it seems like in my mind, <br /> there aren't a lot of precedents for imposing restrictions on specific sites for something <br /> like this. <br /> Commissioner Allen: So I'm leaning with Commissioner Balch on this. So are we ready <br /> for a motion? <br /> Commissioner Allen moved to approve PUD-116, as submitted. <br /> Commissioner Balch seconded the motion. <br /> ROLL CALL VOTE: <br /> AYES: Commissioners Allen, Balch, Nagler, O'Connor, and Ritter <br /> NOES: None <br /> ABSTAIN: None <br /> RECUSED: None <br /> ABSENT: None <br /> Resolution No. PC-2016-14 approving Case P16-0006 was entered and adopted as <br /> motioned. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 11, 2016 Page 5 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.