PC 08/25/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

staffhas done a good job in attempting to reconcile and mitigate the privacy issues. He noted that he believes staflYs recommendation to replace the sliding door with windows is a good one, as well as adding the five additional Cypress trees. He noted that he would support staffs recommendation in accepting the application. He commented that the owner's right to build is a precious one. He also suggested that the applicant work with the neighbors. Commissioner Kameny spoke regarding the Chestnut property on Old Stanley Boulevard, noting that all the required Codes were met and the Commission denied the application. He advised that the City Council asked the applicant to go back and work with the neighbors, and that ultimately he was able to resolve the issues. Commissioner Roberts commented that one of the Commission's jobs is design review. PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED Mr. Laver questioned setting a precedent regarding second-story additions. He noted that many homeowners have been allowed to construct second-story additions. He stated that there is no ordinance that says they cannot build and that it has been allowed next door to them and across the street. He asked if in the opinion of the Commission now is the time to limit Rosepointe to one-story homes, or will someone down the street be able to do it two years from now. Ms. Seto noted that there are more factors that go into the Planning Commission's decision regarding both the design review process and this permit, then just simply applying the Code sections that related to setbacks and FAR's. She stated that there are other factors within the Commission's power to make determinations regarding aesthetic considerations, including the neighborhood character. She advised that the Commission's determination is subjective, in that the City has not established any type of numeric quota regarding single-story vs. two-story homes. She advised that the Commissioners are appointed as decision-makers who understand what they believe is a community character, and they have differing testimony about how this will change the neighborhood, and this is a legitimate basis for them to base their decision. Mr. Laver stated that he believes the precedent has been set in that the City of Pleasanton has allowed the house next door to build a second-story addition. Mr. Bartholomew advised that they have not had a sit-down neighborhood discussion, so the points made by the Planning Commission are very well taken, and he believes that would be a profitable thing to do. He noted that the two-story homes that are existing were placed so they do not impede on any one else's view. He further noted that the window in the second-story addition to his home was planned and built, but then was glass-blocked to allow for the privacy. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED A motion was made by Commissioner Maas, seconded by Commissioner Kameny, approving Case Z-99-135, subject to the conditions in Exhibit "B." PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 August 25, 1999