My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 083116
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
PC 083116
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2017 2:53:24 PM
Creation date
8/11/2017 2:42:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/31/2016
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Bonn: So we've touched on a lot of the information that's on this slide already with the <br />types of uses that would be subject to a minor CUP. What I do want to bring your <br />attention to is the first bullet point. The draft of the zoning code update that you received <br />includes a proposal to include non - retail, non - restaurant, first floor uses along Main <br />Street to be subject to this new minor CUP process. Staff has heard from the <br />community and we have done some outreach efforts and at this time, we're proposing <br />that to be actually tabled for discussion until the Downtown Specific Plan update is well <br />underway, thinking it's more of a policy discussion and more appropriate for that forum <br />rather than the zoning code update. So that's why it's in grey on this slide because we <br />are proposing to step back from that <br />Commissioner Allen: A question on that, are you moving to the next slide? <br />Bonn: Yes. <br />Commissioner Allen: Okay. On the second item on students —would that apply to a <br />tutoring facility that had an outdoor playground area? And I'm thinking of the Raley's <br />situation that we had where it was kind of a school and it was going to have a <br />playground or outdoor meeting area and we ended up saying the outdoor area was an <br />issue because of the resident noise issue. Would this apply or not? <br />Weinstein: It wouldn't as we've currently crafted it. So, and another issue — tutoring <br />heritage schools are not included on this list of minor CUPs or projects that are eligible <br />for the minor CUP process. And the project behind Raley's or in the Raley's shopping <br />center —that outdoor play area also required a Design Review application to go along <br />with it as well. It was a new outdoor use so it went through an entirely different process <br />as well for that outdoor play area, although we combined the CUP application and the <br />Design Review application together. <br />Chair Ritter: If it wasn't a play area it would have been a Minor CUP, correct? The <br />Raley's one we're talking about. <br />Weinstein: Right. <br />Commissioner Allen: That's what I'm leading to. Would this be some kind of tutoring <br />center that had some outdoor area? And the reason I'm asking is because the noise <br />ordinance does not measure human voices and yelling and screaming, so that wouldn't <br />help with the situation and so that's why I'm asking about that outdoor area. <br />Weinstein: So for schools like that, you need an outdoor area so there would have to be <br />another process involved. <br />Commissioner Allen: So would any of these potentially have an outdoor area that you're <br />proposing or not? Or, if there was an outdoor area we'd say... <br />Beaudin:... if they did they'd be in a separate process. <br />Commissioner Allen: Okay, thank you. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 31, 2016 Page 35 of 58 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.