Laserfiche WebLink
On order of the Chairperson, the minutes of October 14, 1998, were approved, as amended. <br />4. MEETING OPEN FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE TO ADDRESS THE <br />PLANNING COMMISSION ON ANY ITEM WHICH IS NOT ALREADY ON THE <br />AGENDA <br />There were none. <br />REVISIONS AND OMISSIONS TO THE AGENDA <br />Mr. Iserson stated that item 6B will be continued to the November 23, 1998 Planning Commission <br />meeting; and, Item 6D will be continued to the November 10, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. <br />5. MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION <br />There were none. <br />6. PUBLIC HEARINGS <br />a. V-98-13/Z-98-226, Antrim Engineering and Construction, Inc. <br />Application for a variance from the Municipal Code to reduce the required front setback <br />from 25-feet to 15-feet and for design review approval for an approximately 7,950 <br />square-foot single-story warehouse building located at 5794 Sonoma Drive. Zoning for the <br />property is I-P (Industrial Park) District. <br />Mr. Iserson referenced the staff report dated October 28, 1998 and highlighted key areas contained in the <br />report including background information; project description; site planning,; access; circulation and <br />pazking; azchitecture and design; landscaping and fencing; traffic generation; and analysis and findings. <br />Mr. Iserson noted that staff is in concurrence with the requested variance for the Sunol Boulevard <br />setback. In conclusion, Mr. Iserson stated that staffs recommendation is to approve Cases V-98-13 and <br />Z-98-226 subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "B." <br />Discussion ensued relating to traffic safety concerns on Sunol Boulevard, the possibility of installing <br />diagonal parking, and landscaping of property. Signage for the building as well as the proposed and <br />existing setbacks were also discussed. <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED <br />Mark Antrim, Antrim Engineering and Construction, Inc., stated that he agreed with the staff report. He <br />then addressed the Commissioner's statements and stated that diagonal parking was evaluated and <br />rejected due to the applicant wanting people to exit on Sonoma Boulevard and their inability to turn cars <br />around if diagonal pazking was installed. Further, he stated that the applicant currently has no plans for <br />a monument sign. <br />Discussion ensued relating to window treatments, dazkening of windows, and signage on property. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 October 28, 1998 <br />