SR 06:245 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Georgatos noted that on page 11, the staff report is incorrect in its statement that the Georgatos would only be satisfied by the elimination of the second-story addition. He stated that his wife actually said that they could support the project if they just downsized the second story or reconfigured the design by moving a room to the first floor. He added that after the Zoning Administrator hearing and the discussion with the neighborhood to downsize the proposed addition, the Knights never followed through or proposed anything else and that the Zoning Administrator mitigated the project with the planting of two trees and the installation of transom windows. He reiterated the windows were not acceptable and did not want them there. He formally registered his complaint about the windows in the stairway on Exhibit 3.1 in that the line of sight drawing does show that the windows do have an impact on their privacy. He stated that comments have been made that there is no view protection ordinances in this neighborhood and that the zoning code allows this addition. He stated that people have purchased their homes with the understanding that they will have a certain view and yet the Knights or anyone else could receive approval for something that would change their surroundings and impact them and the view that they and their neighbors currently have. He added that staff is incorrectly comparing apples to oranges when referring to developments on Foothill Road where the height for a single-story home is 24 feet. He stated that this observation is not applicable to this project because the Knights' proposal will impact their home by the new ridge elevation, and their view and quality of life will be taken away from them. He noted that his existing view was the selling point for his home and noted that a Pleasanton appraiser had estimated that the addition would decrease his resale value by approximate $30,000, which would make it harder to sell his home in the future. He noted that the City's goal to "protect and enhance real property values" would benefit only the Knights and at their expense. Mr. Georgatos took exception to the discussion in the staff report that the design criteria related to the preservation of views by residences and that privacy and quality oflife as currently designed does impact their home and family. He urged the Planning Commission to uphold his appeal and overturn the Zoning Administrator's decision. Stan Knight, applicant, 779 Mirador Court, stated that he and his wife have lived at this location for the last ten years, and the growth of their family has necessitated more living space. They have spent the past three years searching for a larger home but have been unsuccessful. So they began planning to remodel their home and considered adding a second story, especially since they liked their neighborhood. He indicated that they shared their idea with eight neighbors before initiating the City's review process. Several of the neighbors supported their proposal, and one did not object but expressed initial concerns about construction noise and dust. He continued that the objections of the neighbors to the south along East Angela Street were significantly underestimated, and since the grade of these homes is 12 feet higher than their own, they did not anticipate major concerns. Mr. Knight then discussed the design considerations, indicating that they initially considered single- story expansion options as a lower-cost altemation, but they could not find feasible ground-floor layout that would offer the space they needed. They then considered second-story design configurations, taking into account the cost, living space utility, general exterior appeal, and impact to the neighbors. He added that after working with their architect, and reviewing the design criteria with the Zoning Administrator and staff and getting their input, they came up with the current fundamental architectural design as the only viable option. He stated that the proposed project conforms to all City zoning standards with no requested variances. He added that the design of the EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 14,2006 Page 4 of9