CCMIN121289 - Laserfiche WebLink

Item 6b PUD-85-21-5M, Application of the City of Pleasanton for a Major Modification to Amend the Development Standards of an Approved Sinqle-Family Residential Planned Unit Development Located at 306 Neal Street Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 89:521) regarding the matter. Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing open on the application. Dr. Robert Connolly, 306 Neal Street, mentioned that the development rules were changed when he was three-fourths through his project. He stated that he only wants fair treatment. Mr. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, representing Dr. Connolly, explained that Dr. Connolly is concerned about a specific neighbor's complaint that the Connolly development would block the neighbor's view of Mt. Diablo. This neighbor is requesting the City to impose a 30-foot rear setback requirement on the Connolly property to provide a view easement for himself. Yet, this same neighbor's house comes within six feet of Dr. Connolly's property. The PUD submitted by Dr. Connolly indicated two-story units for Lots 2 and 3; now that the project is almost completed, the City staff and the neighbor propose that both lots be limited to one-story units. Dr. Connolly would like to be a good neighbor, but would want to be treated fairly, as well. He suggested that a design review for Lots 2 and 3 be held to preclude any speculation that one neighbor would benefit to the detriment of the other. Mr. Darryl Alexander of Alexander and Associates, 205-B Main Street, presented two photos which City staff took in preparation for the Staff Report. The photos, taken from Lot 4 of Dr. Connolly's property and looking towards Mr. Sandberg's residence, show that the view is blocked by Mr. Sandberg's own landscaping; a two-story house on Lot 3 would not be an issue. Mr. Ron Sandberg, 450 Neal Street, stated that the actual house layouts of the Connolly development are 50% larger than what they looked like in the original plans. He pointed out that some neighbors now have a blank wall right up against their property lines and picture windows looking into their backyards. He commented that the Planning Commission's decision to impose new conditions halfway through the development was reasonable because that would assure that the rest of the project would not be built in the same way. He made two recommendations: (1) Have a 23-foot setback and only a one-story or split-level house for Lots 2, 4 and 6, which are long and narrow lots; and (2) Move the house on Lot 3 toward the west. -6- 12-12-89