PC 012401 - Laserfiche WebLink

,/"'. ,/"' ~ PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Michael Robertson, 4222 Remillard Court, advised that he is one of the three developers of the site. He noted that he is looking forward to moving ahead with this project, and that he hopes to be one of the building's tenants. He advised that he is very sensitive to what the speakers have said, and as a tenant wants to be a good neighbor for a long term. Mr. Bowe noted that some of the comments indicate the idea that an office building may not be an appropriate use on this property. He noted that it is the desirable goal of a city to have a balance between residential properties and office/commercial properties. He advised that he assumes a great deal of thought went into designating this property for this particular kind of use. He stated that the building is 27 feet tall, which is lower than most residences, and that the proposed 17,000-square-foot office building is really a fairly modest structure. He commented on the various means used to break up and articulate the building, and that if the building was one story, it might get longer and may not have an aesthetically pleasing fa~ade. Mr. Bowe advised that as the building is currently situated it complies with the setbacks from Sunol and there is a significant landscape buffer. With regard to the traffic, he noted that the property is located on a main arterial, and he is sure that had something to do with the fact that it was appropriately zoned. He stated that he hopes that the building will set a tone because they have exercised many of their abilities to try to incorporate quality materials and architectural treatments to create a very aesthetic and interesting building. Mr. Hirst stated that the proposal complies with the North Sycamore Specific Plan. He referenced the table in the staff report which indicates that the project meets or exceeds all of the Specific Plan requirements. He agreed that Sunol Blvd. is a gateway to the City, but he noted that South Pleasanton has changed over the last eight years, and it is changing today, and it will be substantially different ten years from now. He commented on the other options considered for the siting of the building on the property. He advised that his original intent and comments were that berming would be installed, but the landscape architect advised that he did not want a berm as it would reduce the number of trees as they would be more difficult to maintain because of the run-off. Mr. Hirst commented on Condition #II.c. requiring the grading in the southern planter area to be contoured to blend the new grades with the existing grades. He advised that they are proposing that it be fairly flat from Diamond Court and a retaining wall be installed by the proposed trash enclosure. With regard to Condition #ll.a., b., and c., Mr. Hirst advised that if the pad is graded down an additional two feet, the people sitting at their desks will see either a berm with a retaining wall, or tires of cars passing by. He noted that this would also create drainage problems. Mr. Hirst commented that with regard to privacy, most office buildings are not occupied after 6:00 p.m. or 6:30 p.m., and, therefore, no one's privacy will be violated. With regard to the trash enclosure, Mr. Hirst stated that he feels it is appropriate as proposed. He also stated that the fence belongs to the City and the applicant is willing to share the cost 50-50 with the City to install the type offence preferred by the neighbors. He also offered to construct the fence and charge the City for its share. Mr. Hirst noted that the proposed building has a 30% FAR, while homes in adjacent neighborhoods have FAR's which are much higher. He noted that if the neighbors want a berm this can be done, but there will not be as many trees. He advised that the proposal is to install 53 new trees. Mr. Hirst requested that Condition #29 be revised to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 24, 2001 Page 7