01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Dave Cunningham, Applicant, clarified comments made earlier and said the photo montage which was sent was a design they had very early on and is not to scale where they are currently. Regarding tree damage, he will have Mike Fulford speak to this. They had their arborist, Jim Clark talk with Mr. Fulford. They also have their historian, Frank Macci present, who will speak on comments relating to historic significance. Mr. Cunningham said he wanted to respond to the appeal in two parts; Part A is a response to items contained in the appeal and Part B is a background of the project. Regarding tandem parking, what he is proposing is no different than what is there now, except one space will be inside a garage. In reading, "the granting of this variance would not constitute a special privilege in that many homes and neighborhoods currently have tandem parking" he canvassed Second and Third Street and there are over 39 homes in that area that have the exact same parking he is proposing or no parking at all or no garage at all. They stated that the approval of the Planning Commission barely merits their approval, and he read comments of Commissioners: Jerry Pentin: I see a lot of compliance. All of our requests have been professionally done. I am fine with the project as it is. Arne Olson: I am delighted with the changes. This is not an independent lot. We are discussing one lot and the project is acceptable as is. Kathy Narum: I appreciate the reference with these proposed changes and with these changes I can support this project. Mr. Cunningham noted that they also went back and made another change and took off the study. Phil Blank: The massing is significantly reduced. Mr. Cunningham said he made the motion to approve and said he fully supports the project and all comments are from the tapes which he listened to and quoted from directly. Mr. Cunningham said in looking how far it can be calculated, there are some municipalities that will calculate FAR as the percentage of the lot that is covered; not the square footage of the house. The home on Second Street would require 5 variances right now to be approved. The square footage of their home is 27% lot coverage and 150% lot coverage of his. As far as the historical district, this portion of Neal is not even in the DSP. If one has their back to Second Street and take the first 15 homes going up Neal, the average age is 1960. This does not qualify as a historic neighborhood. The largest development is the convalescent home right across from his built in 1974. He and Charles Huff put a lot of time and effort into the project and spent almost 3 years dealing with the Planning Commission. He presented the last change where they took the study out. If they took a wall and go back to the Bourg home on Second Street, it is 49 feet which is the separation between their homes. And the separation at the first level is 6 feet less with coverage of foliage. He then presented the latest revision of the plan which shows they reduced the height from 24.5 to 23 feet. Mr. Cunningham described what he did to mitigate massing and said they marched the home back away from the street. They began at 12 feet, dropped to 20 at the house, but when getting up to the second floor, they are 24 feet for the middle section and 36 feet back from the main street. He then displayed comparisons of height and story poles of the proposed home at 205 Neal which is 23 feet high, the home at 215 Neal at 30 feet high, and the Bourg home on Second Street at 28 feet high, which shows how low the drop is to 205 Neal. He also displayed Charles Huff standing and his head is right at the eave mark which is where the balcony will be for the second floor, stating they stepped the design away from the street. He reiterated that they want the house to fit into the character of the historic district the best way they can. He has gone to lengths at finding the right materials to match, and all contractors that will build the house live in Pleasanton, as well. He added that he participated in a workshop with Planning Commissioners, conducted an historical study, conducted a horticultural study, constructed story poles, removed a rear deck, canvassed the entire neighborhood and garnered a lot of support, met one on one with the building commissioners and remove the rear half of the second floor, study and the front balcony. He has done everything he can to scale the house down to something they can still live in. He presented a picture of a house on Neal and First Street and said their house will have much of the same exterior, color, trim and siding. The town needs vitality, new families downtown and tax dollars to stay downtown, and projects like this will create that. City Council Minutes Page 12 of 26 February 7, 2012