06 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

she opposes this plan is that if approved, it would set a dangerous precedent and would tread on other parts of the City's historic neighborhoods. Ms. Bourg presented photographs of the story poles taken from her kitchen window. She stated that there were no windows on the original plan, but they recently went to City Hall to look at the plans and saw that there are two windows on the second story. She noted that those windows and the front deck on the second story of the proposed property would invade their privacy because they face their kitchen, their family room, and their bathroom. She indicated that she talked with the Chief Building Official about the height of the windows, and he stated that the windows had to serve as a fire escape and would be too high at six feet. She noted that the room is also listed as a study but could be used as a bedroom. She also noted that main vegetation referred to between the two properties is low; the largest one on their side is a 25-foot-tall Photinia tree which would block some of the building; however, Photinias have a short lifespan, and this one is about 30 years old. She stated that they did not have 30 years to grow anything that would hide the building. She added that the plan would also spoil their lovely eastern view of the historic Hall home and the hills and trees beyond. Ms. Bourg stated that another issue which was also brought up earlier is that this home provides affordable rental housing which she encourages, and there are single mothers in Pleasanton who cannot afford an apartment. With respect to the three variances in addition to the one already granted, she indicated that because the lot is not deep enough, the proposed structure would sit too close to the street. She noted that this is a function of the house for being too massive for its size at a FAR of 66 percent and is further proof that this project is too much house on too small of a lot. She added that the lot is so small and narrow that there is no room on the side to park a car, the house being 30 feet wide and the lot being only 35 feet wide. She indicated that staff states that granting the variances will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning district; however, she finds that it is a special privilege because other tandem parking situations exist only on lots of older homes, and none have been granted to new homes. She added that staff also states that the tandem parking would not pose a traffic obstruction, but she believes it would because they have a small garage situated so close to the sidewalk and to the property line that their current neighbor cannot see what is coming up the street from his right and is careful not to hit pedestrians when he backs out. She noted that there is a single renter at the house at this time, but there could be at least two people driving cars, and the situation could be more dangerous than it is now. Finally, she stated that the street space in front of the existing cottage has space for only one vehicle, but it is very steep. She noted that previous renters and their visitors rarely parked there and have consistently parked next to their house where the ground is flatter. She indicated that with two to three drivers in the household, there would be more need to park next to their house, and this is a problem for them because this is where they put their garbage and recycling cans, in addition to the already frequent parking that occurs then, including those from Baptist church members who come to services, farmers market shoppers, Wheels buses, delivery trucks, and especially workers and visitors to the Generations HealthCare across the street. She noted that this would make an already over-crowded street worse and would create more difficulty EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEMBER 9, 2011 Page 9 of 17