My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 101001
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
PC 101001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:40:41 PM
Creation date
4/15/2003 7:36:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/10/2001
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 101001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
<br />Chairperson Maas expressed concern about the massing of the wall and inquired why no visuals <br />____ were presented coming from the southeast corner of Valley Avenue and Stanley Boulevard as <br />well as from Stanley Boulevard. <br /> <br />Ms. Kline stated that staff chose the location that it thought would be most visible, considering <br />the grade drop under Valley Avenue. She added that one could have been done from Stanley <br />Boulevard as the facility would be visible over the railroad tracks. However, given the grade <br />difference as well as the 225-foot setback from Stanley Boulevard and the fact that Building E <br />would look identical to Building A with the exception of the two murals, staff chose not to. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kameny inquired if there were plans to park RVs and boats on-site and where <br />they would be placed if so. <br /> <br />Ms. Kline replied that the applicant does not desire at this time to include RV and boat storage; <br />however, it was suggested that Building C be phased and built last and that the applicant provide <br />RV or boat storage while that area in the middle sat vacant. To address visibility concerns, <br />Condition #7 provides that staff would review the location and lay-out of any RV and boat <br />storage plans in the event that the applicant decides to do that. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED <br /> <br />Ed Strom, co-owner of Bay Area Self-Storage, thanked stafffor a complete and thorough report <br />and indicated that he agreed with all the conditions of approval. He stated that this would be <br />their eighth facility and that they want to do this right as this is a long-term ownership <br />opportunity and is an amenity to the City. He pointed out that the property has a lot of <br />constraints and limitations in terms of power lines, train tracks, the Kiewit quarry, and that a <br />storage facility would be best suited for the site. He then introduced Mike Walsh, Managing <br />Director of Bay Area Self-Storage, and David Gates, Landscape Architect to answer questions <br />on the details of the project. <br /> <br />Commissioner Arkin inquired if the developer would have any objection if, at a future time, the <br />City came in and put solar panels on the facility's flat roofs He indicated that while they are <br />other buildings in Hacienda Business Park with flat roofs, there is not much roof space available <br />because of various equipment and screens. <br /> <br />Mr. Strom replied that they were open to that possibility, and were willing to work with the City, <br />as long as it does not impact the view or their operations. <br /> <br />Mike Walsh, Managing Director of Bay Area Self-Storage, and David Gates, Landscape <br />Architect, handed the Commissioners a photo of a railroad mural painter from Boulder Creek. <br />Mr. Walsh then stated that he worked with staff on building up the trusses to accommodate <br />photovoltaic roof panels, and this would require approximately $75,000 to hold up the additional <br />weight of2'i'2lb. per square foot over the entire roof structure. He added that while this was not <br />included in the plan, they were open to reviewing it further. He indicated that the manager's <br />residence and office would accommodate photo voltaic panels, which would provide 150 amps to <br />sufficiently power the building. <br /> <br />.-- <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES <br /> <br />October 10, 2001 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.