SR 06:245 - Laserfiche WebLink

Staff would like to note that neighborhood and staff correspondences can be found in Exhibit M, a Comments and Location Map, that illustrates where the neighbors are located in relationship to the subject property, in Exhibit N, and photographs of adjacent neighbors' properties in Exhibit O. ADDlicants' ResDonse to Neiehbor ODDosition The applicants understand the neighbors' concerns; however, they feel that they are well within the Code requirements and are not asking for anything special: no variances are requested; there are no special view easements on the property. The wall of the second floor addition is setback approximately 25-feet from the shared rear yard property line, which is 5-feet more than the minimum setback required by the Pleasanton Municipal Code. The appellants' property is setback approximately 35-feet from the shared rear yard property line, which puts the building separation of the proposed second story addition and the appellants' home at approximately 60-feet. To protect the appellants' privacy and to soften the architecture, the applicants have agreed to plant two (2) trees between the addition and the southern side property line that will grow no higher than the ridgeline of the second-story addition. The applicants also agreed to modifY the second floor windows, facing the appellants' property, with transom windows that have a sill height of 6-feet or higher to mitigate the Georgatos' privacy concerns. The applicants are also willing to pay for the 7-foot fence on the appellants' property, if the Georgatos' concede to allow the rear facing windows that were originally proposed, but were removed during previous redesigns. Since a 6-foot fence on the Georgatos' property would be equivalent to the 6-foot sill height, the applicants, as well as staff, feel that this would still mitigate the Georgatos' privacy concerns and allowing the original windows would not infringe upon their privacy. Staff would like to note that while the Knights' have expressed their willingness to pay for the 7-foot fence, a condition of approval has not been added given that the fence is not on the shared property line and therefore would have to be an agreement between the two private parties. Staff would like to note that the window modification that the applicants are requesting can be found in Exhibit A.l and are reflected in Exhibit B. The applicants have also indicated that they would provide landscaping on the southwest comer of the subject property to mitigate Mr. Bennett's privacy concerns. While the applicants are willing to pay for the Georgatos' fence they are not willing to pay for an increase in fence height for Mr. Bennett's existing 8-foot fence nor a new 7-foot solid fence for Mr. Imperiale. Staff would like to note that an 8- foot fence is the maximum allowed per the Pleasanton Municipal Code and therefore staff does not support an increase in Mr. Bennett's existing 8-foot fence. The applicants, along with Mr. Bennett, feel that he is the least affected by the addition and the applicants do not find it necessary to provide him with a higher fence. The applicants do not want to pay for a new fence for Mr. Imperiale because his home is elevated higher and providing a solid fence would further impact Ms. Wensel's property. The applicants, as well as staff, find it contradictory that Mr. Imperiale and the Georgatos' would like to maintain their views, yet would like a 7-foot solid fence constructed that would result in completely blocking views from their rear yards. Additionally, if the applicants were required to construct a 7- foot fence for the Georgatos', then the Georgatos' current view would be further blocked by the fence that they are requesting. Another suggestion that the applicants voiced to staff was the elimination ofthe master bedroom window on the west (right) elevation, towards Mr. Bennett's property. The applicants would be willing to do this if the windows on the east elevation, towards Ms. Wensel's property, be replaced with two PAP-93, AppealofPADR-1472 Planning Commission Page 11 of15