PC 111214 - Laserfiche WebLink

change, and newer developments in and around the City reflect changing tastes and desires for larger homes. However, to break up the "look and feel" of any development, especially one as old as Rosepointe, with such additions seems at odds with the long- cherished stance the City of Pleasanton has held in preserving its heritage. The "look and feel" of the Downtown area is fiercely protected from such out -of- character improvements, so 1 would think the City would afford the same consideration to residents trying to preserve their older neighborhoods. 3. And my final point ... "Where does it stop ?" If an individual need only meet the Planning rules for a structure without consideration of its suitability for a particular neighborhood, then how many more approvals will be granted? Or put another way, if you allow a second -story in Rosepointe — especially now after all these years — how do you realistically reject similar -sized projects that will surely come along in the future? This fact would be a selling point to buyers in this area. After discussions with a number of long -time neighbors — some original owners — I am struck by the fact that the applicant's family has lived in — and enjoyed — the Rosepointe area for a considerable number of years, so the cherished desire of the residents to keep the developed single story is clearly not a surprise. I urge the Planning commission to reject this application for a second story as not being suitable for— or in character with —the Rosepointe area. In the absence of rejection, Pleasanton will surely lose a piece of its history forever. John Toms stated, in response to a Commissioner's question regarding whether the three two -story houses on Arlington Court at the top in Rosepointe were built that way, that those were built as split level homes. He indicated that there are six two -story homes at Rosepointe, and the two -story maroon homes on Arlington Drive are not part of Rosepointe. Mr. Toms stated that at the last meeting concerning this project, he spoke about his experiences in construction and the need for compromise and accommodation when disagreements arise, and he was pleased that the Planning Commission saw a similar perspective when they postponed a decision on the application to give that compromise and accommodation a try during a 60 -day time period. He indicated that he was surprised to learn that these new plans had been submitted without dialogue between the parties involved. He added that the staff report says that to determine what he and his fellow neighbors thought about the subject at hand and the suggestion for an opportunity for discussion was unnecessary because staff assumed to know the full breath of the neighbors' thoughts on this. He indicated that it is disconcerting that a department chose to determine that those who attended the last meeting all have the static views on the matter and none of them were interested in accommodating or compromising with the applicant during the 60 -day period. He noted that, in fact, if that had happened, he would have expressed that the new wedding cake design is a greater departure from the original design as to how it fits in with the rest of the neighborhood, and he suspected that others in the neighborhood would feel the same way. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 12, 2014 Page 11 of 35