06 - Laserfiche WebLink

4. The staffs suggested standard for the side yard setback derives from neighbor's PUD- 27 guidelines, which dictate a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet for Primary Residences and 5 feet for accessory structures, but sports courts are not treated as accessory structures or residences, and thee side yard setback for the fence is 6.5 feet. What is the rationale behind recommending more stringent requirements compared to the existing standards for accessory structures on the neighboring property? The property is in the middle of the block and is behind a six-foot fence, with the existing rear lot setback of 14 ft it seems unlikely to impact or endanger traffic. 5. No argument is presented by Staff as to why the conditions for this tennis court fence and lights are more stringent than any other in the annexed parcels or any location in Pleasanton. Even if this PUD development standards are approved, why will any fence or illumination that meets PMC require a City's Administrative Design Review process just because it is in this PUD? (page 12 para 2 of Agenda Item 6 Report) 6. Staff has recommended to disallow exterior illumination. Given the broad nature of this recommendation, are there any specific limitations, including height related, connected to this recommendation? 7. The `dispute' is about 3.5 feet of side yard setback on one corner of the property. Why would a Development Standard attached to a PUD for the whole parcel be encumbered? e.g. Why would a nine-foot gazebo in the middle of the yard not be allowed to have lights because of this PUD filing? Since 2012, Pleasanton has been our cherished home, and we have lived in the immediate neighborhood. Our children have attended local schools—Mohr Elementary School, Harvest Park School, and Amador Valley High School. Embracing our role as law- abiding residents, we hold a deep affection for our community. We have pursued every avenue to heed the City's guidance, extending our outreach to neighbors to thoughtfully address their concerns. We've shown adaptability by embracing changes directed by the City, including letting go of the light installations. In conformance with City directives, we've invested over $90,000 in developing the Tennis Court, which includes resources for a 10-foot fence, and more than $15,000 in legal, advisory, and city- related expenses. Currently, less than 4 feet separates the placement of the 10-foot poles from the City Staffs recommendation to where they are now. With respect, we kindly urge the Planning Commission to consider the journey that has led us to this juncture and answer the questions we have raised in this submission. Page 5 of 18