Laserfiche WebLink
A motion was made by Commissioner Kameny, seconded by Commissioner Cooper <br />recommending to the City Council the approval of the proposed prezoning of the Fuller property <br />(4120 Foothill Road) to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) - A (Agriculture) and PUD-RDR <br />(Rural Density Residential) zoning districts and the Smathers property (4126 Foothill Road) to thc <br />PUD (Planned Unit Development) - A (Agriculture) zoning district. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br />ABSTAIN: <br /> <br />Commissioners Cooper, Kameny and Vice-Chairperson Roberts <br />None <br />Commissioner Maas, Sullivan and Chairperson Kumaran <br />None <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC-99-38 was entered and adopted as motioned. <br /> <br />RZ-98-03, City of Pleasanton <br /> Application to amend the Pieasanton Municipal Code by modifying the process for <br /> reviewing second units. The Municipal Code amendment would allow the Zoning <br /> Administrator to approve or deny a second unit after an administrative hearing and would <br /> create development standards for second units in R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and R-M <br /> (Multi-Family Residential) zoning districts. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson referenced a staff report dated May 26, 1999, and highlighted key areas contained in the <br />report including background information, project description, allowing detached second units in zoning <br />districts with smaller minimum lot sizes, setbacks and heights, the Housing Commission public hearing, <br />and unit size limitations. Mr. Iserson stated that staffhad had concerns with the Commission's <br />recommendation on detached second units since the lot size and setback requirements were so restrictive <br />that it would effectively preclude this type of structure. He noted that there have been no problems with <br />the few detached second units that have been approved over the last several years. Since second units <br />are an important type of affordable housing, staff believes that the standards for detached second units <br />should be more liberal and has proposed the ordinance, Exhibit "A.2," to reflect that approach. In <br />conclusion, Mr. Iserson noted that staff's recommendation is that the Commission adopt a resolution <br />recommending approval of Case RZ-98-03 by the City Council as shown on Exhibit "A.2," and forward <br />the proposed amendment to the City Council for review at a public hearing. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued relating to clarification of how detached homes increase affordable housing, what <br />legally constitutes a detached unit, limiting the number of occupants in a house being deemed <br />unconstitutional, and clarification of the parking spots for the second unit. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cooper expressed disagreement with allowing detached units on smaller lots due to <br />impacts on privacy loss to neighbors. He noted he would not vote in favor of this application and stated <br />that the Commission has already expressed their views and voted on this item. He suggested that due to <br />three commissioners being absent, that this item be continued. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 May 26, 1999 <br /> <br /> <br />