PC 041311 - Laserfiche WebLink

supports Downtown growth and vitality, feels that the design follows the Victorian motif and that color will be important, and supports tandem parking. Noel Anger, Pleasanton resident, stated that she opposes the project and feels there is a basic requirement for an independent historic evaluation. She expressed her opposition to tandem and front yard parking, inadequate setbacks, and the fact that the 40-percent FAR is being defied. She indicated that she thinks the proposal is contrary to the Downtown Specific Plan which states that excessive lot coverage should be avoided and appropriate separations between buildings be maintained. Jon Harvey, Downtown property owner, cited the surge of activity in the Downtown with people wanting to remodel their homes. He stated that he thinks of the Downtown residential area as a neighborhood with a few historic buildings, rather than as a historic district. He indicated that he thinks side of it and did not see scale and massing as a problem. He noted that FAR is a calculation and not about massing, and the applicant falls under the required ratio. He stated that the story poles are slightly above 215 Neal and slightly below the Bourgs house. He acknowledged that tandem parking is always a problem on small lots but feels it is common in the Downtown area. With respect to the effective size of the lot which is about 3,000 square feet, he stated that there are other similar lots in the immediate area, and he feels the City should allow people to continue to improve their properties. Downtown business owner, 25-year builder of many homes in the Tri-Valley, and former member of the Downtown Association Design Committee for seven years, stated that he supports the proposal as well as the comments made by Mr. Harvey about the City not having a historic district. He indicated that the height, setbacks and mass of the house are in general conformance with the neighborhood. He suggested that the Commission determine what makes the most sense for the property and the neighborhood to arrive at a viable solution. Mr. Cunningham referred to issues regarding shadowing and privacy and stated that because the sun is on the southern side of the house, it is physically impossible that the home would shadow the Bourgs home. He noted that the story pole is deceiving and the height depends upon what angle it is seen from. He noted that the roof structure is only about 20 feet high, with the ridge line going down the center of the roof as the only area at 25 feet. Regarding new structures not fitting in with old structures, he stated that most major cities such as Los Gatos and Palo Alto have new homes scattered with historic homes in their Downtowns, and if built correctly, these new homes enhance the area and do not take away from the history. With respect to privacy issues, he noted that there is one bathroom window on the second floor which is above eye level, and they can opaque the window to provide privacy. As to parking, he indicated that the property currently has tandem parking which they are proposing to be maintained, and a garage which will add to the parking requirements. He stated that he wants to make the home into something the City is proud of and that he is not proposing a lot split. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MINUTES, April 13, 2011 Page 9 of 19