Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Fred Cotton, 4933 Forest Hill Drive, inquired how a use permit co d allow a duplex in a <br />single family zoned neighborhood. Mr. Swift stated that it is zoned single family residential <br />and that before the enactment of the State law, Pleasanton's code w uld have precluded <br />duplexes or second units on one lot. However, the State law provi s that in any R-l zone <br />in California, second units meeting the set criteria would be allow . The State views a <br />second unit meeting the stated criteria as a single family use of the t. <br /> <br />Mr. Swift stated this is a unique second unit in that it is not perman ntly separated by a fIre <br />wall, and because the owners would have to come back before the ommission if they were <br />to make it a true second unit, staff feels the second address require ent could be deleted at <br />this time. Mr. Swift further stated that the difference between a du lex and a secondary unit <br />is that the City cannot require one of the duplex units be occupied b the property owner, <br />and that is a requirement in this application. Also, second units ot be subdivided and <br />sold as separate units, as can be done with condominiums and multi unit housing. <br /> <br />Ms. Caraballo returned to say that both she and her mother are co- ners in the property <br />and their intent is to live together. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> <br />Commissioner Michelotti questioned the intent of Condition 5. She ought it implied that if <br />an applicant could put up a separating wall that didn't increase the s of the secondary unit, <br />they wouldn't have to have their conditional use permit modifIed. . Swift stated the intent <br />of staff was to require the applicant to come back through the Plann g Department if they <br />ever walled off the hallway and recommended modifying Condition to make that intention <br />more clear. Commissioner Michelotti further clarifIed and recomm ded that if there is only <br />one house address now, when the applicant returns for the modifica on of the use permit, the <br />second address would be established. <br /> <br />Commissioner Finch brought up the topic of the amount of square ti tage allotted to the <br />secondary unit. Commissioner Michelotti observed the unit currentl consists of 780 square <br />feet, if the guest bedroom is added, the total would be 1,000 square eet, and the second unit <br />is allowed up to 1,200 square feet <br /> <br />A motion was made by Commi"Sioner Michelotti, seconded by C mmi...~ioner Wright, <br />approving Case UP-93-49, making the rmdings A, Band C and bject to the conditions <br />listed in Exhibit "BI! with the following modifications: <br /> <br />· Amend Condition 5 to require a modification of th conditional use permit <br />if a permanent wall was constrocted and adding th requirement for a <br />second address at that time. <br /> <br />. Delete Condition 7. <br /> <br />A discussion ensued among the Commissioners regarding the need ti r a second address at <br />this time. The probability exists, albeit small, that a homeowner ma block off the hallway <br />between the units simply with plywood and wouldn't necessarily see a modification to the <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />September 22, 1993 <br />