16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Pleasanton City Council June 11,2015 Page 4 The concern raised by the various members of the public, as well as some of the commissioners during the Planning Commission hearing related to having this second floor balcony become a precedent for the area and related to concerns of potential degradation of privacy. It is noted in the Staff Report that"[t]he R-1-6,500 Zoning District,in which the subject and appellants'parcels are both located,is considered a medium density,small lot district.Thus complete privacy is difficult to achieve."This last point is indicated perfectly with respect to Applicant's own backyard and pool's complete lack of privacy related to Applicant's eastern neighbor(not the Cummings).A photograph of the rear facade of the r eastern neighbor's home,which taken while standing by Applicant's pool is included herewith for easy reference. As noted, Applicants' eastern neighbor, by virtue of having a two-story residence, has full and unobstructed view of Applicants'backyard.This fact would not change whether or not that neighbor decided to place a second floor balcony in their residence. Applicants host guests(both male and female, both children and adults) at their residence and enjoy the pool in our backyard ourselves. They have never asked any regulatory body, let alone the eastern neighbor themselves, for any remediation of our lack of privacy.These homes are constructed as is, and the residents all have to live with each other as is. The Applicants respect and expect their neighbors to have the decency, comportment and manners related to each other's privacy at their own homes. The Planning Commission unfortunately attempted to fix an inherent construction defect in this area's homes(R-1- 6,500 Zoning with minimal privacy)by imposing conditions on the Remodel that are not imposed on other existing neighbors.In addition,as Commissioner Balch also noted in his statement during the hearing, there is already precedent for permitting second floor balconies in Pleasanton, including one, as he stated, where a second floor balcony was permitted on a single story home. The Remodel application should be considered on its own merits. The issue of whether the City's decision on this application sets a"precedent"should not be dispositive of this appeal. Should there be future applications for similar projects,the Planning Commission and City Council will have the opportunity to review the facts and circumstances underlying those applications and make appropriate decisions. For that very reason,the opinions of other neighbors should not be dispositive of the present matter. The Remodel basically impacts two properties. Those are the only opinions/views which should be taken into account. Likewise, other issues such as whether the Applicants have friends in the area or whether the Cummings have family in the area are beside the point and should be disregarded. The application for the Remodel should not be taken as an occasion to establish new regulations applicable only to this particular project. As a result, Applicants respectfully request that the Remodel be approved as originally submitted, including the balcony, without any restrictions or covenants.