My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 06/10/1998
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
PC 06/10/1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:01:05 PM
Creation date
10/7/2008 9:33:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/10/1998
DOCUMENT NAME
06/10/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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 Kumazan noted that Utah Street is a connector street between Bernal Avenue and <br />Wyoming Street and inquired why Utah Street does not have the two-hour pazking restriction present on <br />Wyoming Street. Mr. Iserson answered that he did not know the reason but that the process is underway <br />to consider atwo-hour limit on Utah Street, as well. <br />Commissioner Maas expressed concern that atwo-hour limitation would pose problems for employee <br />pazking. She inquired about the possibility of issuing pazking permits for employees so that the <br />restriction would be enforced only onnon-employees. Mr. Iserson indicated that a permit system can be <br />considered but would have to be approved by the City Council. <br />Commissioner Roberts indicated that atwo-hour limit may help solve the parking issue; however, that <br />should not be considered as part of the design review application. <br />Commissioner Dove stated that when Diablo Auto Body was proposed two years ago, it included <br />sufficient pazking for its employees and that the new building should be the same. He indicated that a <br />two-hour limit would be appropriate because each business should provide sufficient parking for its <br />employees. <br />Commissioner Kumazan suggested that the Traffic Committee also enforce the two-hour restriction on <br />Utah Street because streets aze for circulation and street pazking hinders circulation to a certain extent. <br />In addition, business and property owners should provide for long-term pazking within their facilities is <br />that is required by the nature of their businesses. <br />Commissioner Dove stated that it is a very solid project and that it would be unfair to require the <br />applicant to move his building farther back to provide visibility for another business, especially since the <br />applicant has more than met the setback requirements for the site. He indicated that he would support <br />the project. <br />Commissioner Maas agreed with Commissioner Dove and indicated that she would also support the <br />project because it would enhance the area and complement what is already there. She expressed <br />concern, however, with the parking issue and requested that the Traffic Committee take a closer look at <br />the situation. <br />Commissioner Roberts stated that this was a good project and that the applicants have done a good job <br />with the landscaping and trying to accommodate the neighbor. She added that future development in the <br />azea will eventually diminish visibility from Bernal Avenue. She felt that this project will help Diablo's <br />pazking problem. <br />Commissioner Sullivan stated that the project was good, although the proposed building would be closer <br />to Utah Street than the existing body shop or adjacent neighbor's building. He inquired if the building <br />could be shifted back a bit to make it even with the other two buildings and provide more visibility. <br />Mr. Iserson explained that the reason Mr. Ghorbani's building is set farther back is because he has <br />parking and a loading door in front of his building . Staff found that it would be more attractive to have <br />landscaping in front of the building and have the loading door and parking in the back. He added that <br />shifting the building back would decrease the 25-foot area at the rear, which is the minimum required for <br />Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 June 10, 1998 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.