Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Swift noted that the second units on the homes built by KB Homes are <br />located on a second floor above the garage that was conducted through a PUD process <br />that established those zoning rules specifically for these homes. These homes are alley- <br />based and have a different orientation to the surrounding neighboring yards than a <br />typical residential neighborhood would have if the homes were built a few feet from the <br />property line. <br /> <br />Ms. Ayala asked how close the second units are to the property line? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said believed the property line for the second story units for the homes <br />on the Bernal property went to the center of the alley. He pointed out that no one is <br />living on the other side of the alley. He did not believe that there were any windows on <br />the side yards, which are at least a minimum of three feet from the property line. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell asked if the Chatelains built the second unit without the proper <br />permits? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift pointed out that sometime prior to the Chatelains' purchase of the <br />property, the previous property ownem reconstructed the garage at a similar location <br />and added a second floor above the garage. At some point, the second floor was made <br />into a second unit. He noted that the Chatelains would like to retain the building and <br />continue to use it as a second unit as well as a garage. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell wondered if the Chatelains wanted to rent out the second unit for <br />income. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift believed the Chatelains were looking at selling the property, but want to <br />sell it with the ability for the second floor to be used as a second unit. <br /> <br />Mayor Pico opened the public hearing. <br /> <br /> Deborah McDonald, a Pleasanton resident and the appellant, believed the <br />Planning Commission's decision was based upon false statements made at its meeting. <br />Referring to her letter of appeal and her letter to the Mayor and City Council, several <br />photographs of the Chatelains' properly and letters that she obtained from Dr. Bortner, <br />the previous owner of her residence, Mr. Smith, former Chief Building Inspector for the <br />City of Pleasanton, and Mr. Thomas, Chief Building Official, she gave a brief explanation <br />of her primary points of protest related to the Planning Commission's decision. She <br />stated that although the property owners were made aware by City officials of the need <br />to bring the structure up to code at the time they purchased the house, the Chatelains <br />have not done anything to upgrade the structure. She indicated that she wanted safe <br />and legal housing in the neighborhood. She requested that this two-story accessory <br />building be removed and replaced with a structure that is properly permitted, inspected, <br />code compliant, and acceptable to those who are directly impacted. She was confident <br />that she could rely on the integrity of Council to consider the facts and make an <br />unbiased decision based on the facts. <br /> <br /> Peter MacDonald, representing the applicants, stated that the applicants agree <br />with the Planning Commission's conditions of approval for the retention of the two-story <br />accessory structure. He asked for clarification regarding staff's recommendation, as he <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 10 09/07/04 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />