CCMIN071503 - Laserfiche WebLink

building additions. Lifestyles change and with homeownership there are certa'm rights. She acknowledged neighbors have the right to comment on a change, but it bothered her that this sometimes causes a rift in a neighborhood. People have differing opinions on designs. She reiterated people have a right to changes in lifestyle and the right to add on to their homes. She did not support an ordinance that would say a person could not add onto their homes in certain neighborhoods. She supported the appeal. Mr. Brozosky was undecided. The General Plan states the character of neighborhoods should be preserved. There are also zoning regulations for this neighborhood. He did not feel it was fair for a homeowner to check all the regulations which indicated they could expand their homes and then go to Council and be told the right is taken away. At the same time, he understood the neighbors view that there is an existing neighborhood which was expected to always be single-story. He felt if this second-story application is not allowed, then Council should change the zoning for this neighborhood, so these applications don't keep coming forward. He did not like pitting neighbor against neighbor. He could not see any area for compromise in this application. Ms. Hosterman agreed this was a very difficult situation. She has tried to weigh both sides of the issue. The original homeowners have a reasonable expectation that the neighborhood character would be maintained, based on the original CC&Rs. She was sorry those CC&Rs had expired. On the other hand, it is unfair for Mr. Siner to bear the brunt of that by purchasing the home in 1986 and not knowing the CC&Rs existed. It is important to support homeowners' rights to expand as families grow or elderly members come home for care. She recognized the need to maintain a mix of housing stock in the community, which allows for new families to move in who might not be able to afford a three or four thousand square foot home, but might be able to afford a smaller home. She drove to the neighborhood to see the Siner home and the neighborhood. The model of the proposed expansion appears to be very large and she tends to support the Planning Commission decision, but she did not want Mr. Siner to feel his rights had been completely set aside. She hoped he could review the design to reduce the mass and still be able to accommodate his family's needs. Mayor Pico felt a key factor was the proximity of the Siner house to the Karo house. He did not feel the two-story addition was in keeping with the neighborhood and he would like to take action to modify the zoning for this area so this problem does not occur again. The original property owners in the development had certain expectations. It was moved by Mayor Pico, seconded by Ms. Hosterman, to deny the appeal of the Siners and support the Planning Commission decision. Mr. Brozosky felt the neighbors did not want any second story houses; even if it was less massive. He did not want to tell the Siners to make it smaller and have the neighbors still not like it. He felt the best solution would have been to have had the neighbors request a zoning change when the CC&Rs expired. Unfortunately, that did not happen. Mayor Pieo reiterated his belief that the only solution was to change the zoning. He felt that was in keeping with the fights of the people who bought in this neighborhood years ago with Pleasanton City Council 14 07/15/03 Minutes