SR 06:245 - Laserfiche WebLink

As conditioned, staff believes that the addition would not result in negative impacts to the privacy of these properties. The applicants' house pad is approximately 12-feet lower than the house pad of the neighbors to the rear, and the height of the house is approximately 9-feet lower than allowed per code. As shown in Exhibit M, there are mature trees along the side and rear of the property that provide privacy and screening of the proposed addition. The rear and side elevation windows are off the master bedroom and stairwell, which are areas that are not used for gathering or entertaining. Prior to and since the public hearings, staff has offered several mitigation measures and has added conditions of approval, which in staff's opinion, would address their concerns. Those measures have included, but were not limited to, higher windowsills, opaque glass, and landscaping along the rear of the subject property. The table in the Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit H) illustrates that the proposed project would adhere to all site development standards of that district and the Pleasanton Municipal Code. Previous analysis, response, and specific concerns from the opposing neighbors and the applicant are also provided in the Planning Commission staff report. Since the Commission's decision, and based on the outcome of the facilitation meeting, the applicants' architect has modified the plans to: I) move the master bedroom 2-feet to the north 2) provide the three 28"x20" transom windows on the rear elevation, facing the Georgatos' rear yard, with a minimum windowsill height of 6- feet; 3) provide glass block windows in the stairwell on the rear elevation; 4) reduce the size of the proposed second floor by 75- feet, from 1,251 square-feet to 1,175 square-feet, thereby changing the proposed FAR from 39.4% to 38.5%; 5) locate three 20"x30" windows on the east elevation, facing the Wensels' rear yard, and remove two windows on the west elevation, towards the Bennetts rear yard. Since the facilitation meeting, the Georgatos' and the Knights' have been working together to reach a final agreement which reflects the points from the facilitation meeting. The Georgatos' have decided not to construct a retaining wall, but the two property owners have decided to improve the two wood fences between them, with the Knights contributing to the cost. Thus, the Knights and Georgatos' have reached an agreement subject to the revised plans and conditions of approval. PUBLIC COMMENT Notice of the City Council's public hearing on this item was sent to all property owners and tenants living within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject property. As of the drafting of this report, staff has not received any additional public comments. For public comments and correspondences that have been received from February to September, please see Exhibit N. SR 06:245 Page 6 of8