06 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Amos replied that they were accurate, based on the records on file. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Dave Cunningham, applicant, thanked the Commission for taking the time to visit the property and see the story poles. He indicated that he has been a resident for 14 years, owns a business Downtown, and is a member of the Pleasanton Downtown Association. He stated that he purchased the subject property eight years ago and began the planning process two-and-a-half years ago, and that he and his family plan on residing in this residence. He added that he is trying to give the City a project that it will be proud of and that he has spent around $14,000 just to get to this point. Mr. Cunningham stated that his project came before the Planning Commission as a Work Session earlier this year, and they were given recommendations and requests for additional studies that it would lie to see, including the number of variances requested, perform a historical study, shadow issue, privacy, tree in the rear yard, the neighbor on the west side, and size. With respect to the variances, Mr. Cunningham stated that all have been eliminated except for the tandem parking and the one required parking in the front yard setback. He indicated that he went through Second and Third Street and found about 38 homes with parking just like he is proposing, and four or five homes that had no parking spots on them. He explained that the reason for the request is that the width of the yard creates a special circumstance unique to this property like many homes in the surrounding downtown area. He noted that the granting of this variance would not constitute a special privilege, as many of the homes in the neighborhood already have tandem parking. He added that this would also not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare in the neighborhood because it is no different than the current method of parking at this residence right now. Regarding historical significance, Mr. Cunningham stated that he is a firm believer in preserving the historical homes Downtown which 215 Neal is, but the converted garage is not. He noted that a historical study was performed, and the findings indicate that the building remodel for human occupancy was modified to a point where it could no longer be identified as a historic building. He added that when residents talk about Downtown revitalization, this is what they are talking about. He indicated that he wants to maintain the integrity and vitality of the Downtown, and this new home will do that. As regards the concern about shadowing, Mr. Cunningham presented a Google Earth picture taken at 9:00 a.m. which shows 215 Neal Street; 205 Neal Street is under the palm trees. He noted that what are creating shadows are all the palm trees right in the neighbor's own backyard and a couple of large trees in front of 215 Neal Street. He pointed out that the sun was very low, and the shade is on their back yard without the proposed house being there. He indicated that the rear portion of the roofline of the single-story structure will be just a bit taller than what exists today. He added that the tree that is creating most of the shade in the backyard is the large tree in front of EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEMBER 9, 2011 Page 2 of 17