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
Commissioner Balch: Can I follow up on that? So, two other examples I want to just <br />ask .... so the coding school that went in down by the Safeway area, as I recall it went <br />through a Zoning Administrator action to change its PUD which was a Zoning <br />Administrator and then it could go through this process, so both levels would hit staff - <br />only approvals, correct? <br />Weinstein: That's right. <br />Commissioner Balch: And it would have been on our Consent Calendar. It was a <br />Consent Calendar item. <br />Weinstein: Right <br />Commissioner Balch: Okay, next one. The Tri- Valley Korean School that just went in at <br />Valley Business Park, there was a minor PUD mod at the staff level to change the hours <br />of operation allowed on weekends because there was a prior PUD condition 43 as I <br />recall that limited outdoor use on weekends. That went through but then it had to come <br />to us, but it was a full blown hearing. Was that because of community outreach or would <br />that have qualified? <br />Weinstein: We just decided to do that particular one because it was a slightly more <br />complex CUP than the permits that usually come through the planning division and also <br />to give Jay some exposure to the Planning Commission. <br />Commissioner Balch: Couldn't it have been a minor CUP? <br />Weinstein: So if my recollection is correct, that was a private club. That was the use <br />category and that's not part of our list of uses that are eligible for minor CUPS. Under <br />our current proposal it would not be eligible for a minor CUP. <br />Commissioner Balch: Let me phrase it another way. That club, if they would have come <br />in and say they were a chamber orchestra music facility could they have been a minor <br />CUP? <br />Weinstein: Right, if they were just simply a music academy, but as part of the <br />application review process we look at proposals and we ascertain what use the <br />applicant.... <br />Commissioner Balch: ...Let me tell you what my concern is, right, so here's what's <br />happened with that particular one. Staff level approval of a minor PUD modification <br />which modifies conditions set by this body to allow uses outside of a designated time <br />block. It was a condition of the PUD right? Then you move forward 25 or so years and <br />so we do a staff level, Zoning Administrator approval to modify that condition and then <br />come sometime you could do a minor CUP and have a chamber orchestra in an <br />industrial area, a light industrial area, which may be considered an incompatible use but <br />yet all approvals are at the staff level. It is similar to the coding school. Both could have <br />been at staff level under this process. Does that concern you? <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 31, 2016 Page 36 of 58 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.