My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 072314
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
PC 072314
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:17:34 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 4:13:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/23/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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 Piper inquired how long it would take for those trees to mature so the roll -up <br />doors would not be visible. <br />Ms. Bonn replied that 24 -inch box trees are proposed. She stated that she does not <br />remember the tree species but that the landscape architect who is present tonight may be <br />able to give a more precise answer. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that a new dealership or some other use will ultimately come in in front of <br />the proposed building and will block it, but in the interim, at least some of the trees will have <br />to be selected for their fast - growing capability. <br />The Commission then proceeded to discuss the Work Session topics. <br />A. Are the on -site circulation Parkinq layout and positioning of the building <br />acceptable? <br />Commissioner Balch inquired if the on -site circulation will include the entire 16 acres and <br />not just the applicants' Lot 1. <br />Mr. Dolan said yes. He explained that the first one will be built exactly as proposed, but <br />staff wants to make sure that the City is approving a site plan for Lot 1 that would work with <br />the development of the rest of the site. He noted that the applicants designed the entire <br />area with the anticipation of future users, and they have come up with a plan that staff <br />agrees works for all three users. He added that when some individual user comes forward <br />and has its own sort of corporate idea of which way it wants to face and things like that, the <br />City might end up having to amend the more conceptual portion to accommodate a specific <br />user. <br />Commissioner Balch stated that in terms of specifically Lot 1 and the building being <br />proposed, his primary comment about the circulation is he thinks it is generally good; the <br />one comment he has is in looking at one of the plans of the path of travel where a vehicle <br />would go on a 90- degree right turn and then an immediate 90- degree left turn to get into <br />the dealership. He expressed concern that it would mean rotating the steering wheel both <br />ways quite far right at the entry. He indicated that he understood it is probably designed to <br />slow vehicles down and give them direction as to where to go, but he considers that a <br />pretty significant direction change. He added that the applicants might find that they do not <br />like it after they build it, and it could be addressed by lopping off that corner. <br />Commissioner Balch stated that in terms of the building placement and the rest of the <br />circulation, the design looks like a car dealership so it makes sense and he has no <br />problems with it. He noted that it has pretty good ingress and egress and that he is <br />comfortable with that. With respect to Lot 2 and Lot 3, he indicated that he is a little <br />concerned that the parking lot at the corner of Stoneridge Drive and El Charro Road is <br />given to Lot 3, as people will be parking at Lot 3 and then walking to see cars across the <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 23, 2014 Page 10 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.