PC 09/22/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

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