My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 041019
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2019
>
PC 041019
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2019 2:28:07 PM
Creation date
6/19/2019 2:28:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/10/2019
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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 Ritter confirmed with Ms. Clark that the pump station can accommodate 12 cars <br /> at one time. He also inquired about the standard queue line for a carwash. <br /> Ms. Clark stated the City's Traffic Engineer Mike Tassano is present and can address the <br /> inquiry and any traffic circulation questions. <br /> Commissioner Brown questioned the reason staff is opposed to the loading zone. <br /> Ms. Clark stated that regardless of whether there is a loading space, delivery trucks will park at <br /> the most convenient location, which currently happens to be at the adjacent property. The <br /> barrier suggested by the applicant will help prevent the adjacent property from being a <br /> convenient place to load. <br /> Commissioner Brown referred to the staff proposed modifications, which indicates that the <br /> business might lose a parking space, and he inquired where large delivery trucks would park, <br /> given the elimination of the loading zone. <br /> Ms. Clark said a large truck would likely park adjacent to the customer parking spaces, and <br /> there is room to park adjacent in the drive aisle. <br /> Commissioner Brown referred to the loading zone per the applicant's design and asked if it <br /> was long enough to accommodate a standard delivery truck, which is typical of what would be <br /> seen outside of a convenience store. <br /> Commissioner Balch noted that plan sheet SP3 seemed to show the requested information, <br /> but he was unsure if this was the size truck being referenced. <br /> Commissioner Balch referred to the 35-foot versus 45-foot driveway and asked what would be <br /> appropriate. He visited the site and the first driveway closest to the corner, if turning left onto <br /> Hopyard Road, cannot be accessed because it is already in the turning lane coming off of <br /> West Las Positas Boulevard. He would assume that this 35-foot versus 45-foot driveway would <br /> be a primary driveway for much of the traffic on Hopyard Road and he asked for further <br /> clarification. <br /> Ms. Clark said the applicant's position is that the 45-foot wide driveway facilitates a faster, <br /> more convenient turn coming off Hopyard Road. Per the City's Traffic Engineer, the shorter <br /> driveway forces vehicles to slow down in order to take the turn, which creates a safer <br /> environment, as opposed to having a larger driveway. <br /> Commissioner Brown asked if it decreases the opportunity to move safely when crossing two <br /> lanes of traffic if someone were to be turning left at the intersection from West Las Positas <br /> Boulevard onto Hopyard Road. <br /> City Traffic Engineer Mike Tassano explained that the primary concern is exiting or entering <br /> the location. With 22.5 feet or two lanes to enter or exit the driveway, vehicles travel at a <br /> greater speed. The City's standard is 27 feet, so it would be a 15-foot driveway entrance and a <br /> 12-foot exit. At this location, 35 feet works because of the position or angle of the fueling <br /> station. Specifically, 35 feet versus 45 feet, either way a vehicle would have to enter on the <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 15 April 10, 2019 <br /> of the site they must manage through that 25 percent area, therefore, <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 19 of 22 March 27, 2019 <br /> 22 March 27, 2019 <br />d. <br /> Ms. Amos said those other proposals did not include the Shriner family's property and the <br /> access required constructing a bridge over the creek. <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 of 22 March 27, 2019 <br />