PC 03/13/85 - Laserfiche WebLink

Minutes Planning Commission March 13, 1985 to maintain their schedule of the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month. Chairman Doherty commented on the California League of Cities conferences held at the Santa Clara Marriotts recently. Much material was disseminated at the conference relating to planning. He will furnish copies of the reports to Shirley who can make them available to the Commissioners and staff. He was glad that some of the staff members were able to attend the meeting. Commissioner Wilson announced that he will not be present at the last meeting of the month. Commissioner Getty indicated she would not be in attendance either. OLD BUSINESS - Public Heari PUD-82-18-6D, Ashwill, Hawkins and Partners, Inc. Application of Ashwill, Hawkins and Partners, Inc. for Planned Unit Development plan approval to construct a nine building, 55,008 sq. ft. office complex on the approximately 4.3 acre site located at the southeast corner of east of Santa Rita Road and Kamp Drive (Stoneridge Drive). Zoning for the property is PUD (Planned Unit Development)-Industrial District. Mr. Harris presented the staff report recommending approval of the project. Mr. Warnick requested that Condition No. 9 be modified so that it reads as follows: That the developer dedicate to the City of Pleasanton for street right-of-way purposes, the 10 ft. wide parcel of land along the Stoneridge Drive (Kamp) frontage of the site and shown as a P.5.E. (Public service easement). Commissioner Lindsey commented that the landscaping plan appears sparse. Mr. Harris stated that this matter has been discussed with the applicant and the staff is now satisfied that there is sufficient landscaping. There is a lot of landscaping among the buildings, and the floor area ratio has been kept to a minimum. The public hearing was opened. John Hawkins, 560 5. Hartz Street, Danville, presented the proposal. He addressed Condition No. 6, 7, and 8 relating to the traffic, water and fir conditions and pointed out that the developer of the land (Devcon/Rheem Investment Group) have already signed an agreement which runs with the land including these conditions so felt putting them as staff conditions this time is redundant. He presented a copy of the agreement to the staff for review. He said they do not object to these conditions, but feel they are already covered. He stated that their project is not a commercial condominium because one typically thinks of a condominium as air space. They are offering a free-standing office building where each owner has an interest in the common area (some have common walls). He stated that they agree with the Change to Condition No. 9 as recommended - 2 -