My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 06/11/97
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
PC 06/11/97
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 3:55:39 PM
Creation date
1/26/2005 4:19:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/11/1997
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 6/11/97
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 />5. <br /> <br />MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARINGS <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />a. PUD-97-06. Peeasus Group <br />Application for PUD development plan approval to construct six one-story storage buildings <br />totaling 70,900 square feet (with an estimated 556 storage units) and an approximately 2,100 <br />square foot two-story building that will serve as an office on the first floor and manager's <br />residence on the second floor for property located at the northwest corner of Valley Avenue and <br />Stanley Boulevard. Zoning for the property is PUD (Planned Unit Development) - C <br />(Commercial) District. The Planning Commission will also consider the Negative Declaration <br />prepared for the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson presented the staff report recommending approval of Case PUD-97-06. subject to the <br />conditions of the staff report. He advised that the proposed project was previously reviewed by the <br />Planning Commission at its May 14, 1997 meeting. At that time the focus of the review was whether <br />the entrance of the project should be located on Reflections Drive or Stanley Boulevard. Following <br />public testimony and Planning Commission discussion, the Commission directed staff and the <br />applicant to use Option 1 (Reflections Drive entrance) to prepare the site plan for review by the <br />Planning Commission at a future meeting. Mr. Iserson also indicated that the applicant decided to <br />include a plan showing the access to the site on Stanley Boulevard, as well, and this was included <br />with in the Planning Commission packets. However, staffs analysis focused on the Reflections Drive <br />plan (Option I), since that was the direction given by the Commission. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson reviewed the proposed plan, detailing the hours of operation, the design aspects of the <br />buildings, parking, and the landscape plan. He noted concerns expressed by the residents of the <br />California Reflections subdivision regarding the use of Reflections Drive as the entrance to the facility <br />and the concern that vehicles leaving the commercial development would make a right turn and enter <br />the local streets of the residential development. He noted that staff is proposing a traffic calming <br />device in the form of a circular traffic median in the middle of Reflections Drive, immediately past <br />the facility's entrance, to discourage vehicular access into the neighborhood. The circular island could <br />be landscaped and contain a decorative sign identifying the residential subdivision with a "local traffic <br />only" disclaimer. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson advised that the proposed plan would not require the removal of any of the Stanley <br />Boulevard heritage trees. He noted that the applicant would prefer not to duplicate the wood lap- <br />siding pattern used on the California Reflections soundwall, and the City's reviewing architect believes <br />the applicant's proposed split face bands would provide a superior architectural design. Staff is <br />suggesting that the "wood lap siding" panels be installed to provide continuity along Stanley <br />Boulevard. Mr. Iserson noted that the Planning Commission may wish to discuss this issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson reported that the applicant is proposing two signs; a free-standing monument sign and a <br />wall-mounted sign. Both signs would be approved administratively. He advised that staff does not <br />believe the wall-mounted sign is necessary or appropriate for this gateway to Pleasanton and the <br />Downtown and that the monument sign is sufficient. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />June 11, 1997 <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.