PC 080807 - Laserfiche WebLink

added to satisfy the neighbors. She believed the height was excessive for its location, particular in relation to Canyon Creek. She would like to see some visuals and if the height was important, she believed it should be moved further away from the areas of visual impact. Her perception was that the row of eucalyptus trees may screen the building from the freeway. She believed the fencing could fit in better with the rural atmosphere of the area and that it should be less ornate. Commissioner Pearce believed this facility would be a positive addition to Pleasanton and that it was important to have places for people to have a sense of an individual community. She had concerns about the extra height and noted that the purpose of a maximum height was to ensure that a building blended in with its surroundings. She would like to see as many visuals from different points of view as possible. She was not as concerned about having the facility look like Pleasanton and believed it should look like an M.T.O. facility. However, she believed it should fit in with the neighborhood. She was not concerned with the noise and would like to see a detailed landscaping plan. She would like to see more details on the fencing to ensure that it would fit in with the neighborhood. She had initial concerns about the guard station looking like a gated compound from the road; if there was a way to set it off the road, she would prefer that option. She understood their desire to have a secure facility. She believed that a specific study of off-peak traffic loads was a good idea. She would like bicycle traffic to be considered in the traffic study and requested that Mike Tesano appear at the next hearing. She read the documents and literature distributed to the Commission and did not believe it would be necessary to check the other M.T.O. sites with respect to how they operate and/or the community’s reaction to their presence. Commissioner O’Connor expressed concern about the height of the building and would like to have more information about the requirements of the structure. He believed that the 80-foot setback from the neighbors would be reasonable and that there appeared to be more room to move the building further, thus allowing landscaping and screening. He suggested adding more screening between the proposed building and the housing development and noted that landscaping would be a key element. He believed there should be screening from the freeway. He suggested moving the building further west to reduce its proximity to the freeway and the apparent height. He did not want to see big walls or the appearance of a compound and did not want the fencing to be too ornate. He did not believe the lighting and noise would be an issue. Chairperson Fox agreed with Commissioner Olson’s comments and noted that there was an existing residence near the traffic circle. In an ideal world, she would like to move the building farther from the neighborhood and the freeway by centering it on the property where the existing residence was located; the caretaker’s residence could be built closer to the neighborhood. She believed that would prevent the building from walling in the adjacent residences and would like to see story poles placed on this site as soon as possible. She was pleased that the dome would not be lighted. She noted that the landscaping at the Virginia facility tended to blend in with the building and that it was difficult to see the glass; the glass at the Los Angeles facility appeared to be more blue. She would like to see more transparency in the dome without being subject to headlights PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 8, 2007 Page 20 of 24