CCMIN090704 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Huff said that the Planning Commission's decision was slightly different than staff's recommendation. The Planning Commission decided that a secondary unit would be allowed. He noted that staff's recommendation did not go that far. The Planning Commission also requires the applicant to submit within 60 days of the effective date of approval complete construction drawings for review and approval by the Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal. Sally Brown, a Pleasanton resident, mentioned that she represented the Chatelains when they purchased their home five years ago. During the disclosure period prior to closing escrow, the Chatelains were made aware that there were no permits on the garage and secondary unit. The Chatelains met with the Chief Building Official who inspected the property and provided the Chatelains a list of items that needed to be corrected. The Chatelains were under the impression that two-story structure with the second unit on the second floor would be grandfathered in once the required list of items were fixed. The sellers made all of the necessary upgrades. She believed that the Chatelains would not have purchased this home had they known what awaited them five years later. She pointed out that there are no City records that show formal complaints by the neighbors. Scott Johnson, the prospect buyer of the home, said that the second unit is a critical aspect of his decision to purchase this property as he and his wife have a daughter who has a severe disorder and is disabled. The ability to retain the second unit would allow for her to live semi-independently. Ms. Ayala asked Mr. Johnson if he is willing to make additional repairs on the second unit to bring it into compliance with the Building and Fire Codes? Mr. Johnson said yes. Ms. Hosterman believed Mr. Johnson was interested in finding a long-term situation for his daughter. She pointed out that she had a problem with the staff report regarding the setting of a precedent to the City's new secondary unit ordinance. She did not believe this would be an issue if Mr. Johnson were not planning on renting the second unit. Mr. Johnson said that he and his wife do not plan to rent out the second unit. Barry Ripley, a Pleasanton resident, said the Chatelains are willing to bring the second unit up to code. He believed it would be an imposition for the Chatelains to have to demolish the existing two-story accessory building. The second unit adds to the integrity of downtown Pleasanton. He believed the privacy issues can be addressed, and he agreed with the Planning Commission's decision. Peter Graham, a Second Street resident, stated that the Victorian style structure is an asset to the downtown. He encouraged Council to consider retaining the existing two-story accessory building. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Ayala, Mr. Graham stated that he lived near the Victorian house when it was built and at the time, there was no neighborhood dispute. He believed there are neighborhood concerns with the decisions that are made for Pleasanton City Council 12 09/07/04 Minutes