PC 04/08/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Cooper feels that the stone wall is consistent with the rural environment. He feels that the Macaris do not have a major issue, noting that their home is a significant distance from the wall. He also stated that he does not want to require the applicant to landscape the fence. He feels that the applicant has shown a fair amount of flexibility in working with neighbors. He also expressed disappointment and regret with Mrs. Parodi's "welcome" to Pleasanton. Chair Cooper supported the idea of split-faced block for the retaining wall. He feels the Macari fence is unattractive. He noted that if the wall is angled by the Severini property, nobody will be able to get on top of it. Therefore, he sees no privacy or safety concerns. In addition, he commented that the applicant has made every effort to design the house so that it does not impose on the neighbors. He feels the house is very attractively designed and will fit nicely in the neighborhood. Given the design, he feels the most logical place for the second-story window is where the applicant has proposed, and he agrees to leave it in that position. He agreed that landscaping along the rear property line would mitigate Mr. Severini's privacy issue and feels it is a good idea to include Mr. Severini in the placement of the trees. With regard to construction hours, Chair Cooper supported Option 2. A motion was made by Commissioner Wright, seconded by Commissioner Kumaran, recommending approval of Z-98-14, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "B", except with the following additions: Construction hours shall be Monday through Saturday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., with only indoor construction on Saturdays. -- 2. The Commission will approve the retaining wall and rear window as submitted by the applicant. 3. Additional trees shall be planted along the applicant's rear property line in order to mitigate the privacy issue expressed by Mr. Severini. Mr. Severini shall also be allowed to participate in the placement of the trees. ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: Commissioners Bazker, Dove, Kumaran, and Wright, and Chair Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Resolution No. PC-98-23 was entered and adopted as motioned. b. PUD-97-22, Trumark Commercial Applicant for PUD development plan approval to allow the subdivision of a 3+-acre site into nine lots ranging from approximately 11,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet located at 1605 Rose Avenue. Zoning for the property is PUD-MDR (Planned Unit Development -Medium Density Residential) District. Planning Commission Page 18 April 8, 1998 __--_ _._.._. __T._-_.._--_.