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
Ms. Harryman said yes. She indicated that it is the standard condition that was tweaked <br />to meet the taphouse project. <br />Mr. Weinstein stated that there is already a similar condition, Condition No. 3 under <br />Exhibit A -2, that staff could modify which somewhat parallels the condition that <br />Ms. Harryman just read. He indicated that it is focused mostly on the car wash right <br />now, but staff could customize it to deal with noise, parking, and crime issues as well. <br />Commissioner Ritter stated that with respect to alcohol sale, he still believes the zoning <br />should be kept the same as what is in place for WalMart so it is fair in that same <br />neighborhood. <br />Commissioner Allen stated that given what Ms. Harryman mentioned under any <br />Conditional Use Permit with all the caveats, it still puts the burden on the community, <br />who will have to live with any problem for the next six months, and she did not think that <br />was fair to the community because they are not supporting this. <br />Chair O'Connor explained that the community will not have to wait six months because <br />if it is a problem, staff could bring it to the Commission's attention immediately. <br />Commissioner Allen stated that staff would have to find it first and then analyze it. <br />Chair O'Connor indicated that staff would know if there is a problem. <br />Commissioner Ritter moved to find that the proposed project would not have a <br />significant effect on the environment and that the proposed PUD Rezoning and <br />Development Plan are consistent with the General Plan and the purposes of the <br />PUD ordinance; to make the PUD and Conditional Use Permit findings as listed in <br />the staff report; and to recommend approval of Case PUD102, the PUD <br />Development Plan, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit A -1 of <br />the staff report; Case P14 -0014, the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the <br />Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit A -2 of the staff report, with the addition of <br />language to Condition No. 3 to specify that if any problems arise related to <br />parking, traffic, noise, or the sale of alcohol, the Conditional Use Permit shall be <br />referred back to the Planning Commission for review at a public hearing; and the <br />revision of Condition No. 4 to limit the drive -thru carwash hours to 7:00 a.m. - <br />9:00 p.m.; and the Negative Declaration prepared for the project as shown in <br />Exhibit H of the staff report. <br />Commissioner Piper seconded the motion. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 27, 2014 Page 33 of 44 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.