My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN020712
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
CCMIN020712
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/23/2012 4:48:57 PM
Creation date
3/23/2012 4:48:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/7/2012
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
damage, he will have Mike Fulford speak to this. They had their arborist, Jim Clark talk with Mr. Fulford. <br /> They also have their historian, Frank Macci present, who will speak on comments relating to historic <br /> significance. <br /> Mr. Cunningham said he wanted to respond to the appeal in two parts; Part A is a response to items <br /> contained in the appeal and Part B is a background of the project. Regarding tandem parking, what he <br /> is proposing is no different than what is there now, except one space will be inside a garage. In reading, <br /> "the granting of this variance would not constitute a special privilege in that many homes and <br /> neighborhoods currently have tandem parking" he canvassed Second and Third Street and there are <br /> over 39 homes in that area that have the exact same parking he is proposing or no parking at all or no <br /> garage at all. They stated that the approval of the Planning Commission barely merits their approval, <br /> and he read comments of Commissioners: Jerry Pentin: I see a lot of compliance. All of our requests <br /> have been professionally done. I am fine with the project as it is. Arne Olson: I am delighted with the <br /> changes. This is not an independent lot. We are discussing one lot and the project is acceptable as is. <br /> Kathy Narum: I appreciate the reference with these proposed changes and with these changes I can <br /> support this project. Mr. Cunningham noted that they also went back and made another change and <br /> took off the study. Phil Blank: The massing is significantly reduced. Mr. Cunningham said he made the <br /> motion to approve and said he fully supports the project and all comments are from the tapes which he <br /> listened to and quoted from directly. <br /> Mr. Cunningham said in looking how far it can be calculated, there are some municipalities that will <br /> calculate FAR as the percentage of the lot that is covered; not the square footage of the house. The <br /> home on Second Street would require 5 variances right now to be approved. The square footage of <br /> their home is 27% lot coverage and 150% lot coverage of his. As far as the historical district, this <br /> portion of Neal is not even in the DSP. If one has their back to Second Street and take the first 15 <br /> homes going up Neal, the average age is 1960. This does not qualify as a historic neighborhood. The <br /> largest development is the convalescent home right across from his built in 1974. He and Charles Huff <br /> put a lot of time and effort into the project and spent almost 3 years dealing with the Planning <br /> Commission. He presented the last change where they took the study out. If they took a wall and go <br /> back to the Bourg home on Second Street, it is 49 feet which is the separation between their homes. <br /> And the separation at the first level is 6 feet less with coverage of foliage. He then presented the latest <br /> revision of the plan which shows they reduced the height from 24.5 to 23 feet. <br /> Mr. Cunningham described what he did to mitigate massing and said they marched the home back <br /> away from the street. They began at 12 feet, dropped to 20 at the house, but when getting up to the <br /> second floor, they are 24 feet for the middle section and 36 feet back from the main street. He then <br /> displayed comparisons of height and story poles of the proposed home at 205 Neal which is 23 feet <br /> high, the home at 215 Neal at 30 feet high, and the Bourg home on Second Street at 28 feet high, <br /> which shows how low the drop is to 205 Neal. He also displayed Charles Huff standing and his head is <br /> right at the eave mark which is where the balcony will be for the second floor, stating they stepped the <br /> design away from the street. He reiterated that they want the house to fit into the character of the <br /> historic district the best way they can. He has gone to lengths at finding the right materials to match, <br /> and all contractors that will build the house live in Pleasanton, as well. He added that he participated in <br /> a workshop with Planning Commissioners, conducted an historical study, conducted a horticultural <br /> study, constructed story poles, removed a rear deck, canvassed the entire neighborhood and garnered <br /> a lot of support, met one on one with the building commissioners and remove the rear half of the <br /> second floor, study and the front balcony. He has done everything he can to scale the house down to <br /> something they can still live in. He presented a picture of a house on Neal and First Street and said <br /> their house will have much of the same exterior, color, trim and siding. The town needs vitality, new <br /> families downtown and tax dollars to stay downtown, and projects like this will create that. <br /> Mr. Cunningham said he spoke with Councilmember Sullivan last night, and Debby Ayres believes <br /> there is a privacy issue because of two windows. He noted there was 30 feet between the walls. If he <br /> comes from their backyard and 15 feet to his back wall, those windows will be up high and he will not <br /> City Council Minutes Page 12 of 25 February 7,2012 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.