PC 071013 - Laserfiche WebLink

believes the application is premature. She stated that she may have been in support of this if the applicants had come back with a plan for the house as opposed to a simple bifurcation and see what can be done. She noted that the house was a big topic of conversation at the Work Session, and while she wants to support this project, she has to say that without an actual plan for the house, she cannot do so, regrettably. Commissioner Ritter stated that he sort of agrees in the sense that this house was built in 1912; the applicants have already done tons of expenses to figure out it is unmovable, and nothing in the criteria shows that the house is historic for Pleasanton. He added that he doubts the remodels done in 1960 were permitted, so it is unsafe and seismically not sound. He noted that he is with Chair Pearce that there is this great company that can develop a beautiful entrance to this whole property, but is not including that first corner lot as part of this project. He emphasized that something has to be done there, and in his opinion, he does not know if it can just be put off to the side and have some developer say they are going to do something later without knowing what is going to go there. Chair Pearce stated that Commissioner Ritter brought up a good point about the integration of the lot within the site. She noted that when the Commission first looked at it, it had talked about the site as a whole; but bifurcating that point does something to the overall feel of the site. Commissioner Allen agreed. She stated that she thinks the Commission is at the point where there is a benefit. She noted that this is not a subdivided property in terms of that house right now being bifurcated. She added that the City has a unique opportunity to keep this house and have the site developed in the right way; so it poses a problem of having an old house that is not even going to be painted or have a new roof line or anything. She indicated that she would be open and be much more amendable to supporting this project if she saw a plan where at least the house was upgraded with a new roof and was looking acceptable, even if the inside was left old. She added that it is more about the visual exterior than its structural integrity. Commissioner O'Connor stated that the Commission discussed at the Work Session that if something were done with that home, it might be an amenity to the rest of the development and could be an added draw for this development. He added that the Commission also talked about density, what it should be if the house would not be restored and what it could be if the house were restored. He noted that the Commission started with the proposed 14 homes, went up from there, and came back down to about a 14 -unit density and about the same amount of open space between the homes. He added that when he was listening to Ms. Hardy go through some of the conditions that Ponderosa did not like, he did not find too many of them that he would absolutely say the Commission cannot do anything with. He indicated that he thinks he could buy into that laundry list if something could be done with the house. Chair Pearce agreed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 10, 2013 Page 18 of 21