My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
14 ATTACHMENT 05
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
052008
>
14 ATTACHMENT 05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/15/2008 2:41:16 PM
Creation date
5/15/2008 2:41:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
5/20/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
14 ATTACHMENT 05
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
DRAFT <br />Mr. Besso noted the Mr. Spencer's pool is five feet from the wall, and the berm wall is <br />approximately one foot thick and with two feet above the ground, the water features would put <br />Mr. Spencer's property six feet above Mr. Besso's property line. He expressed concern that if <br />Mr. Spencer puts landscaping behind the berm wall, it would go down two feet into the ground <br />and the soil would hit the fence and rot it up within a short period of time. <br />Commissioner Olson inquired if the fence is now on the soil. Mr. Besso replied that the <br />batter-boards are on the soil but the fence is above the soil. <br />Commissioner Narum asked Mr. Besso to point out on the diagram where he proposed to have <br />Mr. Spencer's hot tub relocated. Mr. Besso pointed to the proposed location noting the <br />proximity of the spa to the door of his entertainment area. He noted moving the spa would get it <br />away from his house and the next door neighbors' entertainment area and would put the spa <br />closer to the Spencers and give them more privacy. <br />Chair Blank requested clarification from Mr. Besso that from his perspective, moving the pool <br />five feet toward the Spencer's house would be an acceptable compromise and that he was not <br />asking fora 15-foot or 20-foot setback. Mr. Besso said he would be comfortable with a 10-foot <br />setback as well as having the spa moved. <br />Mr. Kee Yun Hwang, attorney representing Mr. Spencer, stated that some of the issues raised by <br />the Commission have already been addressed by the ACC. He explained that this matter came <br />before the ACC in June or July of the past year, which is approximately ten months ago. He <br />stated that the Spencers submitted their pool plans, and based on that submittal, the ACC visited <br />all the neighbors, consulted with some of the experts, and decided that the Spencers' request was <br />satisfactory and approved the plan. He added that since that approval date of June 12, 2007, the <br />Spencers have communicated on a regular basis with Planning staff. He noted that on one of <br />those conversations, the issue of global modification to reconsider setback requirements arose <br />because houses in the development were built too large and the yards were too small, making <br />some of the current setback requirements infeasible for some of the homes in the subdivision. <br />He stated that the Spencers' request is reasonable and that after speaking with the neighbors, the <br />ACC approved the specifications based on the factors the Commission was considering at this <br />present time. He stated that the ACC should be deferred to because it was there, the members <br />had the opportunity to speak with the Spencers and all the neighbors, including the Bessos, and <br />there were no objections raised at that time. He noted that when the Spencers first filed the <br />application for their modification setback, the Bessos raised their objection based on the noise <br />level. He indicated that he did not understand the noise issue since what the Bessos are asking <br />for is to have the Spencers move their spa closer to where the Bessos' spa is. With respect to <br />privacy reasons, Mr. Hwang noted that there is no visibility with respect to whether the Spencers <br />could see the Bessos or vice versa. He noted that the Spencer property is approximately three to <br />four feet above the Besso property and that the photo shows that above the fence, the Bessos' <br />roof is what is visible from the Spencer's home while the second story of the Spencer's home <br />that is visible from the Bessos' home. He indicated that there are no privacy or noise issues in <br />question. He added that this issue has been ongoing since May 2007, now 11 months since the <br />DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 4-9-2008 Page 4 of 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.