06 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

was. But the people do not tear down historic homes, rather preserve and cherish them and the stories they tell. "I often thought, why does California have a different mindset? If something gets a little old or styles change, we tear it down & build something new. "I guess we do the same with the aged. In our society, when people get old, we put them in a rest home instead of caring for them in our own homes. Do other cultures follow the same practice? Or do they preserve their ancient buildings; so that, we can spend our vacation dollars touring ancient ruins and charming old towns of Europe? What is wrong with our thinking? `Are we so selfish today in our world of instant gratification to think only of ourselves and not about future generations to whom the story could be passed? There is a story about a carriage house next to the family home, a doctor's office behind his house, railroad housing. We won't be here to tell, but what we leave behind will. "Everyone has always wanted to live on Second Street. Will they continue to feel this way if we allow its uniqueness to slowly fade away?" Mark Kearns, Downtown business and property owner, stated that he supports the project and feels that the architect did a nice job of maintaining architectural features. He noted that the garage next door would not have necessarily been approved today and is out of character where it sits. He added that he does not see the two-story building as impactful in relationship to the Victorian home next door. He supported preservation of historic buildings and felt that each has a little of its own history. He 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 the home's massing is lower than homes on either 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 EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, APRIL 13, 2011 Page 6 of 15