My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Decision
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2019
>
PDT 19-1
>
Decision
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/11/2019 12:00:44 PM
Creation date
7/5/2019 8:40:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
19
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
Santa Clara Transit Station
Document Type
Decision Document
Document_Date
7/3/2019
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
John Hagan (Hagan) lives on Hunsaker Lane to the north of the property. Initially, Hagan <br />is concerned that the proposed street trees will damage sidewalks. The required street trees are <br />limited to trees approved by the City as being appropriate for areas near streets and sidewalks. <br />Hagan also does not want the proposed connector road to eventually connect to Hunsaker Lane. <br />As with Marshall, I can understand why Hagan would prefer not to have a new road near his house, <br />but again the proposed connector road complies with all applicable approval criteria. <br />Virginia Church (Church) operates the beauty shop adjacent to the southwest corner of the <br />property.' Church is concerned that traffic from the proposed transit station will adversely impact <br />her business and that commuters will use her property as a bathroom since there are no bathroom <br />facilities proposed for the site. In particular, Church is concerned that buses will que up and restrict <br />access to her parking lot for her customers. The applicant prepared a traffic study that demonstrates <br />that traffic will not be made worse by the proposed transit station. While River Road is a very busy <br />street, the applicant is proposing to add a traffic light that will improve traffic. The majority of the <br />buses would enter the transit station from River Road, and therefore would not block the access to <br />Church's beauty shop on Green Lane. While there would be some buses using Green Lane, even <br />using a worst case situation there would only be a bus every five or six minutes on Green Lane. <br />With the proposed new signal, this would not result in customers being unable to access Church's <br />parking lot. The applicant explained that the proposed transit station is the type of bus stop where <br />people arrive to catch a specific bus. The proposed transit station is not a central bus station where <br />numerous buses come in from many different places and people spend extended times waiting for <br />other buses. The applicant does not provide bathroom facilities at such transit stations - only <br />central stations. While it is certainly possible that someone might use Church's bushes in <br />desperation, I do not see that it would be a significant problem or more importantly that it would <br />violate any applicable approval criteria. <br />All of the approval criteria are satisfied.' <br />CONCLUSION <br />For all the reasons set forth above, the Hearings Official APPROVES the applications for tentative <br />PUD approval and for Adjustment Review, with the following conditions of approval. <br />3 Church's friend, Walter Drews, also made the same arguments as Church. <br />4 There are no challenges to the Adjustment Review request. <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 19-1/ARA 19-1) 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.