PC 111214 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Munn concluded by saying that the Schmitts have spent a lot of time and money to develop a new design that mitigates the concerns of the neighbors and the neighborhood within the constraints of the current zoning designation. He asked the Commission to approve the application as recommended by staff in the staff report. Dolores Bengtson stated that the opportunity to provide productive input has never been available, and the applicant has been unwilling to enter into any dialogue and expressed concerns. She indicated that she understands the applicant has no obligation to work with the neighbors, but it seems the "Pleasanton way" encourages such courtesies. She stated that it is never easy to be in conflict with a project proposed by a neighbor, and it is not easy either to disagree with the recommendation of staff that she likes and respects. She indicated that she appreciates the property rights and the desire of the next -door neighbor to improve and enlarge their home, but she also values her right to protect her property from many impacts to the extent possible. Ms. Bengtson stated that she would like to provide a few quick words of explanation for those who may believe she is just a mean old lady seeking to keep a lovely family from having its dream house by complaining about loss of view. She indicated that she understands she does not own that view, and those who know her understands that she has a long and personal connection to Pleasanton Ridge Park and Augustine Bernal Park. She noted that she has hiked on the ridge for years, authored a wildflower guide, and her personal note cards feature the Oak Knoll. She added that she has a passion for the ridge and Augustine Bernal Park and regrets the loss of the majority of the ridge view and Augustine Bernal Park, which both submittals clearly block. Ms. Bengtson asked the Commissioners to set aside the issue of view as she considers it lost, and asked that they consider the impact of the revised design versus the original design on her home and yard. She stated that in her opinion and in the architect's attempt to address the view issue, he created a far more invasive view into her home and yard with the possible loss of privacy. She handed the Commission three exhibits that show the impact of the first and second submittals on her property, plus photos of adjacent homes displaying the consistent ranch -style architectural design of the neighborhood. She noted that to reach the point where a major home remodel in an established neighborhood could move forward meeting the applicant's goals while enjoying major support from adjacent property owners and the neighborhood requires a willingness to work together. She further noted that the applicants, Mr. Munn and the Schmitts, have not been open to dialogue. She pointed out that the Minutes of the August 13, 2014 meeting confirm that three of the Commissioners suggested that the applicant work with the neighborhood. She stated that Chair O'Connor questioned how much time should be allowed for the applicant to return with a revised plan, and "Mr. Dolan replied that he did not think it would take long but that depending on whether both parties are willing to work and how hard they work, the minimum would be 30 days. Chair O'Connor added that more than just one neighbor is involved and that he would probably feel better if 60 days were allowed." She indicated that she listened to the audio of the meeting to confirm the Minutes were correct, and they were, almost word for word, and so it is clear that they expected to have a dialogue. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 12, 2014 Page 8 of 35