06 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

lot of those questions and hopefully a quality project. He added that they have also met with Mr. Dolan a few weeks ago, who mentioned some of the positive aspects of the design of the project, as well as his feeling that the house is too large for the site in terms of scale. Mr. Huff distributed a graphic that shows the massing of the house which is blocked by the palm tree in the front. He stated that, as Mr. Cunningham had explained, in terms of the distances to the neighboring properties and the vegetation, they feel differently about the comment that the house is too large for the site. He displayed another graphic showing what the neighboring property at 4512 Second Street sees when they look at the house, basically the second floor area and the deck out in front. He stated that they felt good about having the opportunity to work with the existing vegetation in terms of massing. He continued that he thinks this is a quality project; its scale as viewed from the street is softened by some of the vegetation. Mr. Huff stated that some of the things he read from letters supporting the project are interesting, one of which stated that those objecting to change had contributed to change at an earlier time. He noted that this is true of many projects in Pleasanton and other cities across California; people are happy to have a house they have built or added on to, and when they see something different in the neighborhood, they might object to it. He added that he thinks this house is in good accord with the Downtown Design Guidelines, and finding that the house as oversized is actually setting a precedent for proposed future homes that are designed well to fit within the Downtown. Linda Garbarino, Pleasanton Heritage Association (PHA) President, voiced opposition to the demolition of the cottage at 205 Neal Street, where all but one short wall on the side of the current cottage will be demolished, which is a weak gesture to preserve history. She stated that story poles were erected for the project to show everybody what they feared, which is that the proposed structure looks too big because it is too large for the lot. She added that it is somewhat of a flawed process to attempt to justify the FAR for the proposed structure by accessing the property next door, as she thinks they really look like two separate parcels of land. She indicated that she personally has no problem with the design and thinks it is a lovely structure, but it is too big for the lot. She added that at this point, there are issues that speak to the height, FAR, the bulk, massing, and setbacks, and every time a problem arises, a variance is needed, which is a departure from what should exist within a historic neighborhood. She stated that the crux of the issue is what has been said earlier regarding protecting the established size and spacing of the buildings in the residential neighborhood by avoiding excessive lot coverage. She added that the Downtown Specific Plan talks about building elements which should be consistent with elements of the Heritage buildings in the immediate neighborhood, and each variance takes away from the intent of those guidelines. She questioned how many variances are needed before too many are sought. She stated that these additional variances become a problem because they vary from what is expected to be seen there. Ms. Garbarino stated that the Downtown specific guidelines for historic neighborhoods prohibit demolition of primary buildings if no other reasonable means of rehabilitation or relocation can be achieved, and these buildings can be retained for residential use as long as the building's primary exterior is preserved. She indicated that this project, if EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEMBER 9, 2011 Page 4 of 17