My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
15
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2017
>
011717
>
15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2017 4:34:02 PM
Creation date
1/11/2017 11:06:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
1/17/2017
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
15
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
184
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
Commissioner Brown Would they still be charged the $750 versus the $3,000 in that <br /> instance? <br /> Beaudin The lower fee, whatever it is set at, would apply <br /> Commissioner Balch And the other element to that is obviously if it gets pulled up you <br /> have to re-notice if you're not 1,000 feet <br /> Beaudin We would We would do that for a hearing <br /> Commissioner Balch Okay To Commissioner Nagler's comment, when I read this I <br /> kept thinking Zoning Administrator type actions and so what does this do that that's not <br /> providing you that this whole new group is here? <br /> Beaudin Yes, it's the cost and the amount of time that goes into it <br /> Commissioner Balch Just because it meets the criteria of a conditional use, nght7 <br /> Beaudin Right, and so the amount of staff review and the amount of lead time we need <br /> with the application is much less and the cost is significantly less This would be <br /> reflected in the Master Fee Schedule knowing that the zoning ordinance update was <br /> coming, and so we pegged it at $750 versus $3,000 for the CUP So it's an easier <br /> hurdle for someone who's trying to establish a business that we've seen established a <br /> number of times in the community and then the timeframe is on the order of months and <br /> not weeks in terms of time savings just because of the hearing process and the amount <br /> of staff work that goes into a standard use permit <br /> Bonn Maybe the other point too is that this is a new process and you know, I'd be the <br /> first to admit there's probably going to be some uses that should be included that aren't <br /> and maybe vice versa, so at some point it's going to take some self-evaluation on staff's <br /> part to say, is this really achieving what we want it to or you know, is it really doing what <br /> we intended to So there's probably going to be a check at some point to see if it's <br /> actually accomplishing the goal <br /> Commissioner Balch So on that note, if you find that it's catching too many or not <br /> catching enough, how do you amend this given you're asking for a zoning amendment, <br /> right? Is there flexibility in how you've written it that you can exclude more? <br /> Beaudin We'll come back It'll be a public hearing process and we'll probably call it <br /> "Zoning Ordinance Cleanup Number 1" and that's just what happens when you take <br /> something 30+ years old that really hasn't been comprehensively looked at in a period <br /> of time I was telling staff that when I've done this in other communities that that is the <br /> process, and you probably pick a date frankly as staff from the day it's adopted and you <br /> say six months from now we're going to evaluate what we've seen so far and then you'll <br /> do it again in six months and probably again in another six months And we may be <br /> back with you in six months or 12, but I can guarantee you that within the first year we'll <br /> be back with a list of things we need to make further adjustments to <br /> EXCERPT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 31, 2016 Page 3 of 25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.