My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
24
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2011
>
041911
>
24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/13/2011 11:55:20 AM
Creation date
4/13/2011 11:48:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
3/15/2011
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
24
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
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
privacy on their neighbors, they discussed the plan with their neighbor, whose initial <br />reaction was positive, but later retracted. <br />Mr. Leroudier stated that they tried to ascertain whether there was a privacy issue and <br />provided pictures to show that in most cases there would be none. He noted that <br />privacy is always relative, as they can see the neighbors on their raised deck, and they <br />did not feel that what they were proposing would affect privacy. He stated that he felt <br />their request was fair and normal, considering that there are dozens of houses in the <br />neighborhood with second -story windows looking into their neighbor's backyard or <br />windows. He added that they do not see any new points or information to overturn <br />staff's decision. <br />Yiping Leroudier, applicant, stated that their case is not a precedent. She presented a <br />map of adjacent properties in the Hansen Park and Pleasanton Valley neighborhoods <br />which displayed a number of homes with second -story windows looking down into the <br />sideyards of one -story homes. <br />Mr. Leroudier stated that they have been waiting for three months now and cannot use <br />their room due to the work to be done. He requested that the Commission make a <br />decision as soon as possible. <br />Mrs. Leroudier presented the floor plan of the house and pictures of the window to be <br />installed. She stated that the neighbors have a large sliding door on the south side of <br />the house through which they can receive plenty of light and that they also have <br />skylights in their kitchen area. She noted that their neighbors have many windows that <br />overlook other neighbors' properties and added that it is not fair to ask them to build a <br />wall instead of a window. <br />Mr. Leroudier indicated that staff is proposing a compromise with trees, but he does not <br />see his request to be any different from other requests. He stated that they have no <br />plans for planting trees as they would not like to entertain any possible liability issues. <br />Mrs. Leroudier added that the trees will block the light coming into the window, which is <br />the purpose of the window. <br />Commissioner Pentin asked the applicants if they would be amenable to enlarging the <br />existing window for egress and have a higher window on the side to allow light in. <br />Mrs. Leroudier said no. She noted that they do not want a wall with artificial light and <br />that they want their daughter to be able to do homework with plenty of natural sunlight. <br />Susan Spangler, a neighbor, stated that she walked around the neighborhood and <br />found there are many homes that have second -story windows with no mitigating factor <br />in- between them and neighbors' yards or first -story windows. She indicated that she <br />had sent a letter listing 26 situations and does not see the applicants' request as setting <br />a precedent. With respect to the trees, she stated that the Leroudiers' air conditioner is <br />DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 9, 2011 Page 4 of 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.