PC 111319 - Laserfiche WebLink

subjected to design review. Accessory structures two stories or greater in height shall be separated by a distance of at least 17 feet from one-story structures." He was not opposed to the ADU, believes it could be connected to the main house and not be impactful and said it does not meet the City's PMC. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Balch asked about the noticing period and 1 ,000-foot noticing radius. He asked and confirmed with Ms. Soo that homeowners were noticed sufficiently which met the legal noticing requirements. Commissioner Brown referenced the comment made by the appellant regarding the 17-foot setback. Ms. Soo confirmed the ADU is for a second-story addition and the setbacks meet the requirements. She confirmed the measurements from the corner of the garage to the property line are 19 feet and closer to the stairs as the width of the lot narrows, the measurement still meets the 10-foot requirement. Chair Allen inquired if the setback was as minimal as eight feet, would it still meet the requirement. Ms. Soo confirmed. Commissioner Brown asked if staff considers a screening wall as part of the structure or a separate wall that would apply to "fences, walls and hedges" and setback measurements. Ms. Soo confirmed that the PMC sets an eight-foot height maximum within the setback area for fences and walls. However, the proposed stairway meets the setback requirement. Commissioner Balch referenced other setbacks that have been four feet and inquired if this is five feet. Ms. Soo responded that this is a PUD and the side yard setback requirement is 10 feet on each side. Otherwise, for the majority of single-family zoning district homes, the minimum side yard setback is five feet. Commissioner Balch confirmed that the appellant's home is approximately five feet from the common property line. The base of the stairs would be 10 feet from the common property line. Therefore, it is approximately 15 feet from the base of the stairs to the appellant's home. Commissioner O'Connor inquired why the setback is only five feet rather than 10 feet on each side. Ms. Soo responded that it is because the appellant's residence is a single-story thus, it is set five feet from the property line. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 12 November 13, 2019 screening location was from the property line. Ms. Almahamid replied it is approximately nine feet. Appellant Niraj Gandhi provided rebuttal comments to the applicant's position on the proposed project, presented the plan showing no door coming into the main house, and said the 20-foot screening wall is not fireproof and he believes it cannot be used as a fire escape. He continued to say it creates bulk and mass and is less than 10 feet from his home. He then quoted the Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC): (1) "Fence, walls and hedges greater than six feet but not over eight feet in height may occupy a required site or rear yard" and he stated the screen wall is 20 feet high; (2) "All additions to main structure which exceed 10 feet in height shall be Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 12 November 13, 2019