Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes <br />Planning Commission <br />1/25/84 <br />Page 3 <br />Commissioner Doherty asked about the configuration of the widening of Stoneridge <br />Drive from Hopyard Road to Johnson Drive. Mr. Warnick stated that off hand he <br />couldn't recall the configuration. <br />Andrew Mack, Bissell & Karn, indicated that the curb line chosen is set in accordance <br />with the drawings for the North Pleasanton Improvement District. Mr. Warnick <br />asked if the plans are the same ones that the State is reviewing now. Mr. Mack <br />said they are. <br />Commissioner Doherty asked if if there is any possibility in the minds of the staff, <br />that at some future date, the City might want to encroach into the setback area. <br />Mr. Warnick alluded that this is possible. He stated that the traffic study done for <br />the AVAC property was recently received and indicated that a double left-turn lane <br />onto Johnson would be needed. He indicated that some property from both sides <br />of the street may be needed. Mr. Harris stated this would not run, however, the <br />entire length of the property in this proposal. Mr. Warnick confirmed this stating <br />it would be just for the length required for the left-turn lanes. <br />Commissioner Wilson then asked about the recovery area. Mr. Harris stated that <br />Caltrans has requested that the recovery area be kept free and clear and the staff <br />is recommending that ground cover be planted -- Ivy or perhaps Ice Plant. <br />Mr. Topham then explained the visibility of the project from the Stoneridge Drive/Johnson <br />Drive intersection. <br />Commissioner Getty asked if the units would consist of two-stories. Mr. Topham <br />said they would. Commissioner Lindsey then wanted to know how one would withdraw <br />stored goods. Mr. Topham explained. Chairman Jamieson asked the applicant if <br />they have two-story facilities in other areas. Mr. Topham said they have one in <br />San Jose. <br />Commissioner Getty wanted to know if the leasing rates would be competitive with <br />other kinds of mini-storage facilities. Mr. Topham said they would. Commissioner <br />Getty then asked if participation in the Assessment Districts would change costs. <br />Mr. Topham said they still believe they can be competitive and will be receiving <br />a fair amount of commercial storage. He felt that corporate offices do not like <br />to use valuable office space for storage and retention of records; thus, a need is <br />created for his business. <br />Commissioner Doherty inquired as to what type of signing would be requested for <br />this business in the future. Mr. Topham said they would probably request amonument-type <br />sign and have it placed somewhere in the intersection area. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />Commissioner Lindsey asked if 12' were to be taken off of the landscaped area if <br />staff had any objections to this. Mr. Harris reiterated the initial landscape proposal was <br />upgraded at staff's request. He stated the applicant will also be landscaping City <br />property north and west of the proposed development. He stated that if 12' were <br />taken off, it would still leave the applicant with a minimum 28' setback. <br />-3- <br /> <br />