My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
17 ATTACHMENT 08
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
050608
>
17 ATTACHMENT 08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/1/2008 1:32:55 PM
Creation date
5/1/2008 1:29:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
5/6/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
17 ATTACHMENT 08
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
90
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Committee in an effort to resolve the neighbors' concerns. As a result of those meetings, the <br />applicants agreed to revise the second unit as follows: <br />• Reduce the size of the covered porch from 426 sq. ft. to 250 sq. ft. <br />• Reduce the height of the structure from 13 feet to 12 feet 3 inches tall at the top of the ridge. <br />• Lower the patio level upon which the second unit will sit by one foot. <br />The Architectural Committee approved the above modifications to the structure (please see <br />attached approval letter dated September 27, 2007, Attachment # 10). <br />With the above changes, the Finebergs support the proposed project. However, the changes did <br />not satisfy the two other neighbors and they had informed staff that they were still opposed to <br />the second unit. Specifically, Mr. Nguyen and Ms. Cheung indicated that the structure would <br />block their scenic views and would change the original community spirit and landscape in <br />regard to density and safety. Mr. Chen and Ms. Fan indicated that the structure would block <br />views from some of their windows, the structure is located too close to their property, and the <br />structure would make their backyard activity uncomfortable and psychologically impact their <br />daily life, particularly because their rear yard is several feet lower than applicants' yard. <br />Since both neighbors had cited view impacts as concerns, staff had the applicants install story <br />poles depicting the height of the structure in order to allow the neighbors and staff to accurately <br />gauge the view impacts of the structure. Staff went to the neighbors' homes and took <br />photographs of the story poles, which are included with this report (see Attachment #11). <br />On November 2, 2007, staff met with Mr. Chen, Mr. Nguyen, Mr. Bawa, and representatives of <br />the Vineyard Hill Homeowners Association to review the photographs of the story poles, <br />discuss the neighbors' concerns, and try to identify possible mitigations to address the <br />neighbors' concerns. At the request of staff, Mr. Bawa had taken staff's photographs and had <br />his designer "fill in" the walls and roof of the structure so that the structure would be more <br />visible in the photographs (see Attachment #12). Mr. Bawa brought these photographs to the <br />meeting for viewing by staff and the neighbors. At the meeting, Mr. Bawa had indicated that he <br />was willing to install landscaping to screen the structure from the neighbors' views. Mr. Chen <br />and Mr. Nguyen indicated that they were not prepared to discuss their position on the project or <br />mitigations and indicated that they would need to confer with their wives. <br />After the meeting, Mr. Chen and Mr. Nguyen contacted staff and indicated that they were still <br />opposed to the second unit and did not want the structure to be built. Therefore, staff scheduled <br />the Zoning Administrator hearing. <br />PAP-117 Planning Commission <br />Page 3 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.