Laserfiche WebLink
T Commissioner Fox further inquired if the renters had weighed in on the project. <br />Ms. Mendez replied that the renter first notified the appellants and was concerned about <br />the project and the effects of noise and dust. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br />Steve and Carol Stanton, 6882 Via Quito, appellants, aze the owners of the home at <br />3116 Joanne Circle located directly behind the proposed project. Mr. Stanton presented <br />overhead pictures of their house, identifying the bedroom, the kitchen, dining room, and <br />family room, which are located directly across the proposed two-story additions with <br />lazge windows and the large balcony, thereby negatively affecting their privacy. He <br />stated that they consider this house to be their home rather than a rental unit and that they <br />lived in the house from time to time. <br />Mr. Stanton then presented his concems regazding the project and handed the <br />Commissioners with a list of these concerns, which is included in the staff report as <br />Exhibit D. He indicated that his main concerns were the balcony and the big windows on <br />the second story. He stated that the suggestion to plant trees on a four-foot space would <br />not be sufficient because the trees would need to grow 16 feet tall to address the privacy <br />issue and it would take many years before that could occur. He added that the roots of <br />the 16-foot tall trees would also spread out considerably and cause damage. <br />Mr. Stanton stated that the floor area ratio stated on pages A-2 and A-3 do not correspond <br />to the living space and noted that the drawings were not complete and had mistakes. <br />Jim Rhoades, 3227 Anastacia Court, stated that most of the issues brought up by the <br />appellants were addressed at the Zoning Administrator hearing and that he thought they <br />had been resolved at that time. He noted that the trees would take away all the privacy <br />concerns and added that he had approached eight of the neighbors, including the <br />Stantons' next-door neighbor to the north, and all of them were receptive to the remodel. <br />Cheryl Bates, 3227 Anastacia Court, fiancee of Mr. Rhoades, stated that, with respect to <br />the Stantons' concern regarding privacy issues, they had talked to the Stanton three years <br />earlier to put a lattice up on the fence to provide privacy, as they could see into the <br />Stantons' living azeas by just standing on their own backyazd and living room. She noted <br />that the Stantons did not agree to the lattice. She added that they had lived in the azea for <br />eight yeazs and that the Stanton house has had renters for at least six years. She <br />continued that the proposed balcony would be overlooking a trellis on their property and <br />would be looking directly into the Stantons' backyard or living areas. She stated that <br />they have raised their son in this neighborhood and would like to make improvements for <br />a growing family, as they plan to stay and live in this neighborhood that they love. <br />Robert Sweeney, 1469 Naples Way in Livermore, explained that the windows on the <br />second-floor aze standazd second-floor bedroom windows that would provide egress for <br />~--, getting in and out of the bedroom. He noted that the balcony is a full four feet out and <br />nine feet wide but that it is a radius balcony with not much squaze footage and can fit <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 26, 2006 Page 15 of 24 <br />