My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 082714
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
PC 082714
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:20:55 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 4:17:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/27/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
pick a time and vote on it. He added that this would be his preference, but the <br />Commission can do what it is talking about. <br />Commissioner Allen asked Mr. Dolan if the Commission voted on an item on whichever <br />way it went, if the Commission could ask the Police Department for a report in six <br />months. She explained that the Commission would not commit to it now, and the <br />residents can certainly let the Commission know if there are issues. <br />Mr. Dolan said yes <br />Commissioner Allen asked if, assuming there were issues, the Commission would have <br />every right to bring this back for re- evaluation without it being set today. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that the Commission can re -visit a Use Permit if there are issues. He <br />clarified that it would not be six months from now, but six months after it is operating, <br />which would probably be a year and a half from now. <br />Commissioner Allen asked Mr. Dolan to share what is involved in re- looking at a <br />Conditional Use Permit. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that there would have to be some sort of violation. He asked Julie <br />Harryman to explain. <br />Ms. Harryman explained that a condition that the Commission sees normally with CUP's <br />is similar to the one discussed in the taphouse case earlier, and it could and should <br />probably be added to this application to alleviate some of the concerns. She read the <br />condition, granted that it is for a bar: "If operation of the bar results in conflicts <br />pertaining to parking, interior or exterior noise, traffic circulation, odor, smoke, or other <br />issues related to outdoor grill area or other factors verified by City enforcement staff, the <br />notification of Conditional Use Permit noise standards violations verified by City <br />enforcement staff shall be provided to the Planning Commission by City staff. The <br />Planning Commission may schedule a public hearing to re- review the Conditional Use <br />Permit, and at the public hearing, the Planning Commission may revoke or modify the <br />Conditional Use Permit to require additional measures as necessary to address any <br />issues." She stated that rather than have these six -month automatic reviews for the <br />reasons Mr. Dolan already explained, and every controversial item would start to get <br />those because the neighbors would want it, staff should see first if there is a problem <br />and then have them come back. She indicated that she can think of many, many <br />projects that she thought the Commission might see again, and they actually did not. <br />She noted that they worked out just fine and did not need to come back, although some <br />of them did. <br />Chair O'Connor asked Ms. Harryman if she would be able to craft a condition to add to <br />this project that would be similar to the one for the taphouse that would be able to <br />address these items should there be problems at this location for noise, alcohol, police, <br />or whatever other issue. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 27, 2014 Page 32 of 44 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.