06 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

incorporate their recommendations; go to a Planning Commission Workshop and incorporate many new recommendations; and then find yourself at this meeting where suddenly your project is dead in the water because it is being looked at under a different set of rules, in this case, a logical lot split versus being two homes on a single lot. He noted that had the owners known at the Workshop that the metric was going to be FAR, based on what the visual lot size is, they may have taken a different direction. He indicated that he thinks the process has run its course, that variances are incidental and do not drive the design of the house, that it will have to have tandem parking. He urged the Commission to consider this application from the Cunninghams' perspective and from a process perspective, and move the project forward. Mr. Cunningham stated that in responding to the statements made about variances, he is not asking for anything different than what is currently on the lot now or what is currently in the neighborhood; and to him, this is not a variance. With regard to FAR, the size, and all the other regulations, he indicates that he is compliant, that it is not two separate lots, even if it looks that way. Regarding the statement that the majority is in opposition, he stated that he has 66 letters of support from the neighbors, and it is the PHA that is objecting. He stated that he walked up and down the street and many people are happy to see something done. He noted that Ms. Krichbaum commented that 215 Neal Street has tandem parking, but it does not, as there are two spaces, one covered and one along the side of it. He further noted the Mr. Bourg stated that the streetscape is not to scale, and he pointed out that it is, especially for height, and noted that the peak of his roof falls right in the middle of the second floor of Neal Street. He indicated that the 215 Neal Street window lines right up with the peak of the roof of their proposed home, and the peak of the house is right at the bottom of the window of the master bedroom. He added that there is 39 feet between the two homes, and he has no control over the garage, which is a utility building. In response to Ms. Bourg's comment that that the windows in the front room cannot be used for a fire escape, he replied that those windows do not have to be used as fire escapes because there is a door to the front of them. With respect to losing affordable housing, he noted that the Pleasanton Weekly published that over 400 units being proposed for affordable housing, and he did not think one cottage will not impact this. As regards traffic obstruction, he stated that the garage right there makes it difficult to back out and they need to be careful. He added that the parking issue is due to the nursing home and that half of the people parking up and down that street are going into the nursing home. In conclusion, he stated that he reduced the project to the smallest size possible while still making it livable for him and his wife, with the bedroom downstairs measuring nine by ten feet. He indicated that he cannot envision squeezing it any smaller and still make it livable. Charles Huff, architect, referred to rental properties in the Downtown and stated that to keep this property as a rental property would be foolish. He added that perhaps some of those who spoke tonight and own properties would rent out some of their rooms. He stated that with the approval of 205 Neal Street, there will be an opportunity to show how historic sympathetic projects can enhance a Downtown streetscape. He noted that this home is a one-of-a-kind project and does qualify for one of those other homes in that neighborhood that are "under siege." He stated that in his opinion, the structure EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEMBER 9, 2011 Page 12 of 17