Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Brozosky asked for an explanation as to the changes in the height of the <br />proposed building. <br /> <br /> Mr. Siewert mentioned that originally, the mechanical units were to be located in <br />wells on the roof of the building. In reviewing with the contractors to determine the <br />actual cavity on the inside of the interior height within the oi~ce premises, the height <br />varied. Based upon the Planning Commission's suggestions, Valley Park Associates did <br />lower the building height, which is now at a height that is the same as that which was <br />originally presented to the neighbors back in July and subsequent meetings thereafter. <br />Since the Planning Commission meeting, Valley Park Associates reduced 1 foot of <br />ceiling height on the second floor, and has also taken another haifa foot out of the <br />building cavity where the mechanical units will be squeezed, which will now be located <br />on the inside as opposed to the outside of the building. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky asked if Valley Park Associates felt confident that the height for the <br />building would be the actual maximum height after it goes through design review? <br /> <br />Mr. Siewert said that the current plans would be the absolute maximum height. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky asked if there was a chance the height could be lower? <br /> <br /> Mr. Siewert said Valley Park Associates worked hard to scale the height down <br />and they were very adamant at the Planning Commission meeting that the height would <br />remain as is. Based, however, upon further reflection in working with the architect and <br />the contractors, another foot and a haif was found and the ceiling height on the second <br />floor was lowered. He said that the ceiling height would not be any higher. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell asked how the neighbors would feel about allowing for public <br />parking on the weekend afternoons. <br /> <br /> Mr. Siewert said that he had discussed daytime parking on the weekends with the <br />neighbors and it was his understanding that many of the neighbors did not want nighttime <br />or daytime parking on the weekends. Not only would Valley Park Associates not support <br />nighttime parking, it would also not support daytime parking. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala asked if there were letters from other homeowners and businesses on <br />Ray Street that felt the opposite about the parking situation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Siewert said that was correct. He noted that a property owner could own two <br />or three residential units, which it has leased to tenants. What the property owners have <br />been finding is that the tenants are parking on the street and they are concerned about it, <br />as some of the building's tenants could spill over and park on Ray Street. These property <br />owners want the assurance that there is sufficient on-site parking for ail of the office <br />building's occupants. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 15 02/17/04 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />