PC 08/14/85 - Laserfiche WebLink

Minutes Planning Commission August 14, 1985 to be an eyesore. He asked if the Planning Commission has any recourse in this matter. He would prefer that the landscaping plan be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Mr. Swift explained that several ideas were discussed, but landscaping was not part of the contractor's plans. At one point the reservoir was going to be screened by pine trees but this idea was discarded. There is no irrigation for landscaping on the site. The color of the tank did not come out as expected. Chairman Wilson asked Commissioner Innes if he would be satisfied if Mr. Swift came back to the Commission with a report. Commissioner Innes indicated that if the staff can come up with a quick solution at the next meeting, he would not call it up for public hearing. PUD-85-10, Hopyard Partners Application of Hopyard Partners for Planned Unit Development-Central Commercial rezoning and development plan approval to construct a 7,350 sq. ft. day care facility, an 8,000 sq. ft. commercial office building and additional parking area (over the Pleasanton Canal) north and east of an existing shopping center located at the northeast corner of Valley Avenue and Hopyard Road (Hopyard Village). Zoning for the properties are CC (Central Commercial) and "P" (Public and Institutional) Districts. This matter was continued to 8/28/85. UP-85-19, Prudential Insurance Company Application of the Prudential Insurance Company for conditional use permit approval to operate an interim heliport for private use on a portion of an approximately 2.3 acre site located on the southeast corner of Owens Drive and Chabot Drive. Zoning for the property is IG (General Industrial) District. Z-85-176, Prudential Insurance Co. of America Application of the Prudential Insurance Co. for design review approval to construct an interim heliport on a portion of an approximately 2.3 acre site located on the southwest corner of Owens Drive and Chabot Drive. Zoning for the property is IG (General Industrial) District. Mr. Swift asked if Cases UP-85-19 and Z-85-176 could be discussed at the same time with separate action for each application. The Commission agreed to this request. Mr. Swift stated that staff had concern with the material of the structure and the land concerning dust. It is his understanding now that the Planning staff has worked with the applicants and reached agreement as to what can be done with the building itself. Commissioner Michelotti then asked about the dust and what would happen that area off to the side. Mr. Swift stated it is proposed to be landscaped with low shrubs, etc. to minimize dust. Commissioner Michelotti stated that she didn't see a condition of approval reflecting a six month review by staff. Commissioner Innes asked if the number of trips proposed is compatible with the City's noise standards. Mr. Swift indicated - 2 -