CCMIN080790 - Laserfiche WebLink

4O8 14r. Tarver indicated that there was a hearing on Condition llo. 14 ~hat the final house siting plan and building elevation ~ould be submitted for review in conjunction with the Eentative map. That was accomplished for Lot 20. 21r. Ben Shorum, 682 Orofino Court, whose property backs up to ~he development, stated that a few months ago, the owners of Lot 18, an irregular lot, built a three-foot high deck which extended to within three feet of the fence. He said that the City directed the owner to take the deck down because it was in violation of the 20-foot setback condition. He added that there would be no point to the neighbors' meeting held in 1988 to formulate the conditions for the project if those conditions can be rescinded and changed. Ms. Sammy Shrimali, applicant and a Pleasanton resident, indicated that she supported the Planning Commission's and staff's ~ecommendation that Mr. Schneider's appeal be denied. She stated that she bought the lot based on previously approved PUD and house siting plans and that the house on Lot 20 conforms to and more than satisfies all the requirements of PUD-88-3 and its subsequent PUD modification. She added that the footprint of the current design is much smaller than that approved by the City and shown on the house siting plan dated August 10, 1988, and that there were other houses with smaller setbacks in the same development that were approved. She mentioned that she had shown the footprint to the neighbors who would be directly impacted by the house and that these neighbors had signed a letter supporting the denial of the appeal. She then handed the Councilmembers a copy of the house siting plan. She pointed out that it would be unfair to change a previously approved PUD and urged the Council to deny the appeal. 24r. Dennis Shrimali, co-owner of the property, stated that he had bought the lot at a premium based on the type of house that could be built according to the pre-approved building conditions ~hich included a site plan. He added that the house plans were checked by City staff and met all the conditions required by the Eity. There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Mercer asked Mr. Swift for more information about Lot 18. Mr. Swift stated that Mr. Shorum was correct about the removal of the deck; however, the reason it was removed was not because of ~ ~riolation of the condition that there ~ould be no structure ~vithin 20 feet of the rear yard line or that the main structure should have a 20-foot setback, but because there were special 3-7-90 - 16 -