CCMIN042683 - Laserfiche WebLink

· 141 so that it could be punched out later but at this time there are no plans for opening Kolln Street onto Valley Avenue. Council discussion ensued regarding the alternatives for the soundwall. The following persons spoke in opposition to this application: Mr. David F. Hillyer, 975 Kolln Street, presented a petition signed by 53 resi- dents on the west boundary of the Valley Business Park, which read as follows: "We, the undersigned residents of Jensen Tract and Amador Estates, request the Pleasanton City Council to not adopt the modification to Condition No. 14 of Ordinance 924 as summarily accepted by the Planning Commission at their April 13, 1983 public meeting. This modification now defines a six-foot masonry wall to be installed on our existing property fence-line. The wall is in- tended to offset the additional negative impacts caused by CPS's requested three-foot height increase of building along the west side of their develop- ment property. Unfortunately, such a property line wall would also destroy the effectiveness of the existing 30-foot landscaped buffer, which we believe should be retained for its intended "mitigation" benefits to the adjacent homes. "We, therefore, request the Council members to adopt a modification to Condition 14 which would require a 10-foot high screening wall located within the buffer zone approximately 27 feet east of our common property line, as previously negotiated with CPS and described in their letters and drawings to Mr. Robert Harris on 4/1/83, to Kolln Street residents on 4/4/83, and as recommended in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated 4/13/83. Regarding the kind and quality of fence materials to be used, we would submit to the arbitration judgment of the Planning Division and/or City Council." Mr. Hillyer reviewed the results of the petition as follows: (1) number of resi- dences solicited - 42; (2) number of abstentions - 2; (3) number of petition approvals - 37; (4) number of petition disapprovals - 3; and (5) number of approval signatures - 53. He stated that he had not seen Alternative C for an 8 foot high soundwall until this evening; and that this alternative would be his preference. He advised that other residents on Kolln Street have not seen this alternative. Mr. George Jensen, 1137 Kolln Street, reviewed his written communication to Council dated April 25, 1983, regarding his concerns relative to visual and aesthetic considerations, and noise. He advised that he had contacted a private fencing com- pany who quoted cost figures much lower than the figures presented by Mr. Martin for construction of a fence or soundwall. He presented a drawing showing three eleva- tions for comparison on the height of soundwalls and their aesthetic effects rela- tive to height of buildings on the west side of the Valley Business Park. He stated he prefers Exhibit C alternative for an 8 foot high soundwall, as presented by Mr. Martin tonight. Mr. Lars Jotten, 1265 Kolln Street, thanked Mr. Hillyer for his efforts on this issue. He stated his only concern is acoustics, and that he prefers Alternative C for the 8 foot high soundwall. He also strongly recommended that Kolln Street be kept closed because of traffic to the dumps. Mr. Charles J. Pignolet, 987 Kolln Street, presented his written communication to Council dated April 24, 1983, regarding his concerns. He stated he prefers Exhibit C for an 8 foot high soundwall, and felt that cost of the soundwall would depend on the quality of material used. He stated that Ordinance 924 makes fencing a requirement for approval. 8. 4/26/83