Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Swift said the Planning Commission had proposed a six foot fence on the <br />subject location and the one at Danbury Park is much lower than that. He felt a four foot <br />fence was adequate on the subject site to deter pedestrian traffic. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell asked if a hedge or other landscaping could be used in place of the <br />fence. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said that was possible for the eastern edge of the property, but it would <br />not be appropriate to plant under the large eucalyptus tree. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico referred to the massiveness, height of the building and its location on the <br />site and pointed out that staff had recommended to the Planning Commission that the <br />building pad and parking lot be lowered, but since the Planning Commission did not <br />support that, staff has now changed its mind. He asked for an explanation of the change <br />in staff recommendation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said that was not a major issue for staff. The building could only be <br />lowered about two feet and still look good from Sunol Boulevard. The southwest comer <br />of the building would be about five feet lower than the sidewalk. The drainage of the site <br />would still be efficient. Lowering the pad any further would cause various problems. <br />The question is whether the two foot lower ridgeline of the building really makes that <br />much difference in terms of someone's view across the lot towards Sunol Boulevard. <br />The presentation of the building to passersby on Sunol Boulevard is important as well. In <br />addition, if the building is lowered, the southeast comer office would be about five feet <br />lower than the sidewalk and the occupant would look directly at a retaining wall. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis asked for clarification of what the poles and netting demonstration <br />was supposed to depict. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said it was to show where the window elevations would be, not the top <br />of the building. That was to demonstrate what someone in a second story office would be <br />able to see or be seen. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico asked if staff supported the building being close to the street and <br />whether this was the only way to get this much floor area ratio on this site to <br />accommodate the parking. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said the building is at the setback designated in the Specific Plan after <br />the neighbors indicated they did not want the building located close to the residences. <br />This building could be anywhere on this lot and has a 30% floor area ratio, which is the <br />maximum allowable for the site. <br /> <br /> Jeff Antrim, 1883 Zenato Place, one of the owners of the property and builder of <br />the project, indicated they had wanted to make a statement with this building since it was <br />at the entrance to the City from the south. They hired an incredible architectural firm to <br />design it and Timothy Bowe of Architectural Resources Collaborative, Inc., will answer <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 4 02/20/01 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />