My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 011205
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
PC 011205
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 2:57:48 PM
Creation date
3/9/2006 8:31:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/12/2005
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 011205
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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 Roberts noted that if the applicant rotated the building, the entrances could <br />be placed at the back of the building; she noted that atwo-building cont3 guration would <br />be best in that situation. She cautioned against making the big rollup doors for auto uses <br />visible from Bernal Avenue. <br />Commissioner Arkin noted that if the applicant decided to build this business inside the <br />business park rather than on a gateway street, the discussion would be less detailed_ <br />Mr. Lee noted that he had lived in Pleasanton since 1 997 and intended to stay in town and <br />provide valuable services to the neighborhood_ Iie added that he lived four miles from <br />his proposed site. He noted that an auto-related use, particularly a body shop, was <br />extremely tentative. He noted that a hair salon or dog grooming salon were possible uses <br />and emphasized that they would be very selective in choosing uses for the buildings. <br />Commissioner Arkin noted that he would be satisfied with atwo-story building so that <br />office space could be located on the second Moor. He noted that there were no ridgeline <br />issues at that site. <br />Mr. Lee noted that historically, the second Boor of a retail space was not cost-effective or <br />pro t3table. <br />Ms_ Nerland noted that the property's PUD had certain conditional and permitted uses <br />already attached to the property. O»ly conditional uses would be brought before the <br />Commission' permitted uses would not. <br />Mr. Pavan advised that staff was performing a traffic analysis on this project and that <br />LOS impacts were being observed because of the Valley Avenue/Bernal Avenue and <br />Stanley Boulevard intersection. He noted that permitted uses were involved, but the uses <br />would be examined as they relate to trip LOS impacts. Staff would also examine the uses <br />that would minimize impacts to the intersection. The procedural processing would be <br />further discussed by the Assistant City Attorney. The applicant had submitted the funds <br />necessary to initiate the preparation of the LOS analysis. <br />Chairperson Maas believed that the signage issue could wait for a later workshop_ <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts regarding the biowell, Mr. Pavan <br />noted that bioswales were more common, and that the biowell raises quesrions of <br />potential impacts to groundwaier_ At this point stafF would look at a bioswale as a <br />means of dealing with stormwater runoff. <br />Mr_ Jost noted that Mr. Pavan's assessment was correct and that staff would prefer <br />bioswales_ Bioswales dealt with surface water, and biowells dealt with underground. <br />water. <br />Commissioner Arkin suggested that Mr. Lee consult with staff regarding architecture to <br />--- ensure they were on the same page before investing in detailed drawings. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 12, 2005 Page 14 of 21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.