My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN091995
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCMIN091995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:54:18 AM
Creation date
5/20/1999 11:35:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
what is being done and why weren't the existing conditions being enforced. She did not <br />anticipate that the neighbors would say anything negative about what is being proposed, but there <br />is a desire to make sure they are informed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Garetz stated that it is the kind of business where if the neighbors weren't informed <br />and there was no outside appearance that this business was going on, they probably wouldn't be <br />aware that the business was there. There is no consumption of alcohol on the premises, and <br />there is no business beyond five o'clock in the evening. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarvet questioned the differences between a conditional use permit and a <br />permitted use with these conditions, in terms of revocation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated a revocation of a permitted use with conditions is a process similar <br />to what a person goes through when applying for the conditional use permit. Under the <br />ordinance, if the Zoning Administrator decided that those conditions weren't met and revoked <br />the zoning certificate, the applicant would have the right to appeal that decision up through the <br />Planning Commission and then to the City Council to make sure that the Zoning Administrator's <br />action was reasonable. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver asked what it would take to reconsider this? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated a member of the majority vote should make a motion to reconsider the <br />matter. From a process point of view, it would be better to be reconsidered now; that way the <br />matter could be on for a new first reading at the next Council meeting; as opposed to going for <br />the second reading the next time and deciding at that point that you didn't want to do a second <br />reading. There might be an argument that another pubic hearing would have to be scheduled <br />with another delay of two weeks. If the matter is reconsidered tonight, staff will renotice the <br />matter. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver felt that if the neighborhood was noticed that this business is going into <br />that shopping center, they will come to the hearing to tell Council that they are sick and fired <br />of the owner of that property abusing their neighborhood. What Council is doing is making it <br />possible for him to move in without the neighborhood knowing about it. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if Mr. Garetz could personally contact those six houses that back to the <br />shopping center and explain what the difference is and see if there is any reason for them to <br />complain. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver stated that the proposed ordinance doesn't let the neighbors know that this <br />type of business is being considered. <br /> <br /> Mr. Garetz would like his business given a chance to be a good neighbor and not assume <br />he will be a bad neighbor. <br /> <br />09/19/95 -26- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.