Laserfiche WebLink
decision based on what is best for the entire community. She indicated that Pleasanton <br />is blessed with wonderful people, great weather, and a family-friendly atmosphere, and <br />the gift to all who live here is a small town heritage charm of the Downtown residential <br />and commercial area. She stated that she believed the plan for 205 Neal Street is <br />wrong in so many ways and asked the Commission to deny the project. <br /> <br />Brian Bourg, neighbor, stated that he lives next door to the proposed project. He <br />indicated that he has seen the streetscape and plans which are and <br />are not drawn to scale and, therefore, do not show the true relationships among the <br />structures involved. He asked that if the project goes beyond this stage, a <br />photomontage be done, similar to the one done for the two homes proposed for the <br />Generations HealthCare property, to show exactly what it will look like in relationship to <br />the surrounding area. He read from a written script as follows: <br /> <br />the project for many reasons, most of which relate to the massing and <br />scale of the home as proposed, as well as the variances it requires. <br /> <br />Staff report, dated November 9, 2011, Downtown Specific Plan & Design <br />ications are <br /> <br /> <br />k, massing & setbacks <br />should be consistent with those elements of buildings in the immediate <br />neighborhood, & the design of new buildings should NOT represent a <br /> <br /> <br /> Cunning <br />cited above, thereby detracting from <br />significant departure <br />represent a from that of its surrounding properties. <br /> <br />property is located on a LOWER PAD <br />from the historic Hall home at 215 Neal which has he appearance of, and <br />function as, an independent lot. A retaining wall bisects the property and <br />effectively makes the 2 properties appear independent and separate. <br /> <br />Treated independently, the proposed home would have to fit between the <br />retaining wall and our property line a distance of only 35 feet. And the lot is less <br />than 80 feet deep. If it were considered a separate lot, it would need a fourth <br />variance for having less than the required 100 foot depth. <br /> <br />-foot home on a <br />2808 square-foot parcel, thus presenting itself as a home with a FAR of 65.6, a <br />SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE from any other home in the neighborhood, thereby <br />violating DTSP guidelines regarding massing and scale. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 9, 2011 Page 17 of 29 <br /> <br />