My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
12
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2020
>
042120
>
12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/17/2020 4:33:10 PM
Creation date
3/12/2020 10:13:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
4/21/2020
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
12
Document Relationships
12 ATTACHMENT 3
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2020\042120
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
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 Balch asked and confirmed that, without the PUD, the property would be zoned <br /> the same as other businesses in the area. <br /> Commissioner Pace agreed with the pull of competing considerations and inquired if there was <br /> some kind of direction that could be taken related to the number of drive-through locations <br /> allowed within the City. <br /> Ms. Clark responded that she could not because the conversations have not yet occurred. <br /> Commissioner Allen mentioned the traffic study and City Traffic Engineer Mike Tassano's <br /> summary about pass by trips and asked what was expected. <br /> Mr. Luchini responded that Mr. Tassano's comments did not account for the applicant's <br /> analysis; he also discounted pass by trips by about 50 percent. He stated the City would not <br /> account for a pass by reduction, because even through the vehicles were currently on the <br /> roadway, there was no discount for a pass by trip. He stated Mr. Tassano came up with a <br /> discount in the PM peak trips for 39 trips from the hours 4PM-6PM; the AM peak trips would <br /> increase the daily trips from 10 to 66 peak trips; and the over trips would increase from 121 to <br /> 777 trips. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor confirmed that the analysis did not include consideration of vacating <br /> the current location and what could fill the vacant space. <br /> Commissioner Allen mentioned that staff discounted the trips based on the current conditions. <br /> She asked if a conditional use was requested if the zoning were changed. She also inquired if <br /> another drive-through would be allowed if Taco Bell decided not to move forward. <br /> Ms. Clark explained staff's proposal that, if the modified condition were supported, a CUP and <br /> design review would be required for a restaurant at that location. She explained that any drive- <br /> through would be allowed if the modified condition allowed for a drive-through with a CUP. <br /> Commissioner Balch referenced Phase Ill and whether another project would be subject to the <br /> condition; he pointed out that only Pad B was singled out for the restriction. <br /> Mr. Luchini responded that the condition was specific to Pad B, so the removal of the condition <br /> would be specific to the proposed location. <br /> Commissioner Allen asked if the condition would run with the land. <br /> Ms. Clark responded that a consistent use could move into the same space. <br /> Vice Chair Brown stated neither straight zoning nor PUD would restrict the type of drive- <br /> through. <br /> Ms. Clark explained that a coffee drive-through creates a different trip generation. <br /> Commissioner Balch asked if a Chick-Fil-A, with additional car queue needs, could replace the <br /> Taco Bell. <br /> Excerpt: Draft Planning Commission Minutes, January 22, 2020 Page 3 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.