CCMIN090704 - Laserfiche WebLink

believed staff was proposing to make changes to the Planning Commission's conditions of approval. Mr. Swift said that staff's recommendation is to not grant approval for the second unit but to improve all of the conditions that the Planning Commission imposed with respect to retaining the building in its existing location without the second unit. Mr. McDonald asked staff if it had withdrawn the recommendation that the applicant be required to have tinted windows on the second floor. Mr. Swift said yes. Mr. McDonald stated that the applicant supports the Planning Commission's recommendations. He proceeded to provide a background of the existing structures, which is featured on the cover of the Pleasanton Design Guidelines. He pointed out that the prior owner did not obtain a building permit to reconstruct the garage at a similar location with a second unit. The second unit is the only issue before Council. At the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Chatalain described the actions he took to bring the garage into compliance with City requirements when he pumhased the home in 1999. The applicants disagree with staff's recommendation to convert the second unit into a recreation room. To bring the structure up to code, new foundation footings would have to be put around the entire perimeter of the building; sheer, earthquake-strong walls would have to be added; and, one-hour firewalls throughout most of the structure or fire sprinklers would have to be installed. The applicants will not be willing to spend $60,000 to upgrade the structure if the second unit will not be retained, in which case they would demolish the existing structure and build the proposed one-story garage. The Chatelains strongly prefer to retain the second unit as would the buyer. If Council wants to create revitalization of this neighborhood, a zoning district is needed that legalizes the existing, charming character of this area. He pointed out that many of the homes in this neighborhood already have second units, which predate the change in the City's second unit ordinance to prohibit second units on the second floor. He explained that perspective purchasers would refuse to buy and fix neighborhoods if their first building permit triggers an expensive, complicated and uncertain City process. The applicants believe the building safety issues are not an issue based on the plan improvements and the privacy issue is minimal, which can be addressed. He asked Council to include the Planning Commission's variance findings in its motion to approve this application. Jean-Luc Chatelain, the applicant, asked Council to support the Planning Commission's decision. Referencing written documentation he provided to Council, he outlined the process he and his wife went through in order to try and bring the existing conditions of the construction work into compliance. Charles Huff, a Pleasanton resident, indicated that the garage and the second unit above it have been in existence for many years. He pointed out that the State is encouraging second units and the decision is bigger than this one particular unit. This project needs to be looked at in a kinder way knowing that design professionals will do what is right to bring the conditions of the construction work into compliance. Ms. Ayala was not clear on what was approved at the Planning Commission with respect to this applicant and what Mr. Huff was requesting. Pleasanton City Council 11 09/07/04 Minutes