My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 01/09/85
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1985
>
PC 01/09/85
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 10:59:24 AM
Creation date
4/23/2007 4:47:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/9/1985
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 01/9/85
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
Minutes <br />Planning Commissio. <br />January 9, 1985 <br />and color/material board. This plan consists of 43.20 <br />landscaping and the setback is now 205 feet versus 133 feet. <br />explained that Hopyard Road is not the main entrance of the <br />project and Chris Kinzel of TJKM is present to address this <br />other traffic concerns. <br />He <br />and <br />Chris Kinzel, TJKM, then addressed the traffic concerns with <br />emphasis on the ceremonial entrance on Hopyard Road. Their <br />analysis indicates that that of the 287 vehicle trips leaving the <br />site when built out only 17% would be using the Hopyard Road <br />entrance. Probably traffic bound for the site would be the only <br />users who would be interested in making a "U" turn. <br />Commissioners Innes, Lindsey and Getty then discussed the traffic <br />possibilities with Mr. Kinzel. Mr. Kinzel indicated that the <br />Commission was addressing the configuration as it currently <br />exists not taking into account that many people will be using the <br />Hacienda interchange and other routes. It is better to provide <br />as many options as possible for traffic. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />Commissioner Innes inquired about the sign on page 2 of the <br />plans. Mr. Harris indicated they are asking that the applicant <br />come back with a sign program for their building. Mr. Battler <br />interjected that it is not their intention to apply for sign <br />approval at this time. <br />Commissioner Lindsey was satisfied with Mr. Kinzel's comments <br />regarding the traffic. Commissioner Getty stated that not <br />everyone will want to enter from the front. She liked the <br />project and the tremendous amount of open space. She felt it to <br />be a unique project. Commissioner Innes stated he felt Mr. <br />Kinzel is correct and that people will take the path of least <br />resistance. He hoped that the City Council would be convinced. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Wellman, seconded by <br />Commissioner Lindsey that. Case PUD-81-30-26D be recommended for <br />approval subject to the conditions shown in the staff report. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Getty, Innes Lindsey, and Wellman <br />NOES: Vice Chairman Wilson <br />ABSENT: Chairman Doherty <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />Resolution No., 2594 was entered and adopted recommending <br />approval of Case PUD-81-30-26D as motioned. <br />UP-84-G6, Alameda County Flood Control District (Zone 7) <br />Application of the Alameda County Flood Control District for <br />conditional use permit approval to construct an approximately <br />7,500 sq. ft. administrative office building and workshop on an <br />approximately 3.4 acre site located on the northeast corner of <br />the intersection of Hopyard Road and Parkside Drive. Zoning for <br />the property is "P" (Public and Institutional) District. <br />- 10 - <br />.. ,. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.