Laserfiche WebLink
Chair Allen inquired about the appellant's concern related to parking. She recognized ADU <br /> parking is different from standard parking and asked Ms. Soo to clarify if it meets the PMC. <br /> Ms. Soo responded the appellant indicated the applicant always parks in front of the driveway <br /> and the applicant clarified this was due to having visitors. She explained the PMC requires the <br /> City be flexible when determining ADU parking. Parking for the ADU is allowed in the driveway <br /> and meets the ADU requirement for one parking space. <br /> Chair Allen inquired about the stairs and asked if the PMC has any restrictions or clarification <br /> about where stairs should be located on ADUs. <br /> Ms. Harryman responded that it is not something addressed by the PMC or state law. The new <br /> legislation only requires four-foot setbacks; and if someone were to convert their garage into <br /> an ADU, no replacement parking would be required. <br /> Commissioner Balch asked and confirmed that the setbacks are superseded by the PUD and <br /> state laws will also remove many local controls relating to ADUs. <br /> Commissioner Ritter asked and confirmed that if the application was submitted after January <br /> 2020 it would not have come before the Planning Commission and more liberal conditions may <br /> have been allowed. <br /> Acting Director of Community Development Brian Dolan stated that when the PMC is changed <br /> as a result of the new laws, these types of projects will not come before Planning Commission <br /> for review and will be a ministerial review. <br /> Commissioner Ritter inquired about the current setbacks and confirmed with Ms. Soo they do <br /> not violate the current PMC. <br /> Commissioner Brown inquired whether this project has been reviewed by the Fire Department. <br /> Mr. Dolan responded that compliance with the Fire Code will be triggered when the applicant <br /> applies for a building permit. <br /> Commissioner Brown commented that the Commission read the applicant's letter and counter- <br /> arguments against staff's recommendations and this was why he had clarifying questions. <br /> Commissioner Ritter said based upon new state laws for ADUs, he made a motion to deny the <br /> appeal. Commissioner Balch seconded the motion, however, he had comments. <br /> Commissioner Balch commented that neighborhood issues are difficult and appreciates the <br /> respect by both parties. He supported denial of the appeal and believes the applicant has <br /> taken actions to address concerns with the sun, screening, the stairs and setbacks. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor reiterated changes coming in January 2020 where things could have <br /> been more intrusive for the ADU. <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 12 November 13, 2019 <br />0-foot <br /> screening wall is not fireproof and he believes it cannot be used as a fire escape. He continued <br /> to say it creates bulk and mass and is less than 10 feet from his home. He then quoted the <br /> Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC): (1) "Fence, walls and hedges greater than six feet but not <br /> over eight feet in height may occupy a required site or rear yard" and he stated the screen wall <br /> is 20 feet high; (2) "All additions to main structure which exceed 10 feet in height shall be <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 12 November 13, 2019 <br /> at 6700 Santa Rita Road, Suite C. <br /> Zoning for the project is a Planned Unit Development— Commercial (PUD-C). <br />