PC 081314 - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

important such that it is not an issue if someone is building since there is no view to be impacted, but that is not the case here, and it is important that this be taken into consideration. Commissioner Allen stated that she thinks the Commission needs to continue this as the previous Planning Commission and Council did in the last two cases, in hopes that the neighbors can work something out. She added that she was pleased to hear that there is enough space for an expansion on a single level, and while that may not be ideal for the applicant, it is an alternative that the applicant can consider. She explained that her recommendation is based on two points under Section 18.20.030 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code, Exhibit C of the staff report: (1) Subsection A.4. speaks of preserving views, and this addition does significantly impact the view of a neighbor, which the Commission needs to preserve in whatever solution there is. (2) Subsection A.3. refers to the relationship of this proposal to the adjoining buildings, and the adjoining buildings along Hamilton Way are all single story, ranch style, as opposed to this home which is much larger in scale with two stories. She added that she does not believe the proposed addition meets the acid test of being consistent with that character. She concluded by saying that there is a precedent here right now with the two most recent cases which support her recommendations well and for which the findings made were very similar to the reasons she has stated. Commissioner Ritter stated that the Commission's job is to set zoning and not necessarily to keep communities from fighting. He noted that the zoning is set, and if the Commission thinks the zoning is wrong, then it needs to change that zoning, whether it be to allow two stories in neighborhoods or not at all. He also questioned if it is right for a neighbor to grow a tree that blocks someone's view and then tell that neighbor to cut down the tree. Commissioner Ritter stated that he is struggling with trying to be the judge and jury of a neighborhood because it sounds like it is a great neighborhood. He indicated that he also drove around there, and his gut feel is that the design looks very good in the neighborhood with the two stories, and he wants to honor the current zoning that allows two stories. He added that rather than denying the project, he would push it back to the applicant and the neighbors to see if they can arrive at some compromise. He noted that the Commission will get a number of these requests coming in, and he would rather change the zoning than have the same issue. He noted that the City is trying to encourage more high- density zoning in Pleasanton in order to get work -force housing. He added that the City ought to also be cognizant of people who want to do additions and add -on's because he would prefer that they did not sell their house and move to Livermore where a bigger footprint is affordable. Commissioner Piper stated that she believes in preserving property rights, and people who own homes should be allowed to do this kind of addition, particularly if it meets the guidelines and is within reason. She indicated that she believes the proposed addition in this case is within reason and certainly sounds like that it is based on the City's documentation with the exception of the view issue. She added that she also thinks that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 13, 2014 Page 10 of 32