PC 110911 - Laserfiche WebLink

which are all very positive. It comes down to just this one issue that there is a specific policy in the DTProtect the established size and spacing of the buildings in the residential neighborhood by avoiding excessive lot coverage, and In essence, this asks if the building is the right size for this lot. If the two structures are considered together on the lot, it does meet the technical requirement of the floor area ratio (FAR) at just under 40 percent. If they are considered as two building sites, and the pad for the cottage is currently well below, for someone driving by, it looks like a separate lot. The question is if what is proposed too big, which is basically what this policy is saying should be avoided. There is some subjectivity to that ques conclusion is yes; it is justified, verified, or supplemented by the fact that the FAR calculation on just that pad comes up as 65 percent, which is significantly more than the 40 percent. It does not mean it is not a nice house; if it were on a bigger lot, staff would probably recommend approval. Chair Narum inquired if the FARs calculated in the staff report are accurate. 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 like 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. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 9, 2011 Page 12 of 29