PC 12/09/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Johnstone readdressed the Commission and provided clarification relating to the height and length of the residence. Further, he stated that the laundry room will be located across the back of the residence and underneath the roof. He noted that when the applicant purchased the property, the bundle of rights included allowable square footage and height of residence, that the design of the residence complies with the character of the neighborhood, and that work on the barn was performed to eliminate safety hazards. Further, he noted that the chain link fence was incorporated on the property as a security and liability measure and that he will do the pest reports which should not be a concern of the neighbors. Mr. Chestnut readdressed the Commission and stated that the gazage will be fortwo-cazs. He noted that he has worked in cooperation with the Building Department and that staff has no objection to work performed on the barn. He stated that he was unaware of ivy removal problems with the neighbors until recently and he would address those issues with the neighbor at the conclusion of the hearing. He stated that he has an electrical permit. He addressed issues relating to the petition, scenic views, fencing, landscaping, and pazking. He provided photographs to the Commission for their review. In conclusion, he stated that he wants to be a good neighbor. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Cooper stated the barn could certainly pose a liability issue, the chain link fence is not aesthetically pleasing but keeps unauthorized people off the property, and that the sideways design of proposed residence will have an impact on adjacent neighbor's scenic views. He stated that the problems here are the result of misunderstandings. He understands the removal of the ivy, and he has no problem with the second unit. Commissioner Cooper expressed concurrence with the neighbors that a home of this size will change the chazacter of a neighborhood which has already been impacted by construction of multiple-unit dwellings. He expressed his reluctance in denying the application; however, he also expressed his reluctance in approving an application that would allow a home of this size to affect neighbors. He stated that the Commission has the authority to deny the design and suggest modifications, such as a long, narrow, one-story residence that would make it more acceptable to the neighborhood. Commissioner Maas expressed concern with the length of time the chain link fence has been erected on the property and suggested that a wrought iron fence be installed to enhance the appeazance of the property. She expressed approval with the application for the secondary unit. She noted that this is a sensitive area and that the General plan notes preserving the character of older neighborhoods in Pleasanton. She noted that .the proposed design of the residence is not appropriate in this neighborhood. She noted her reluctance in denying the application and stated she would be in support of the applicant cooperating with the neighbors to reach a compromise on the design of the proposed residence. Commissioner Kameny stated he had no concerns with the chain link fence and the secondary unit. He suggested that a condition be added to Exhibit "B," if the application is approved, requiring the gazage be brought up to code. He expressed concern with the character of the neighborhood being affected and stated that this proposed residence is a beautiful home, but is in the wrong location. He isn't bothered by the squaze footage, but expressed concern with the massiveness of the proposed residence and noted a nearby residence where access to the property is pointed easUwest versus north south, which reduces visibility from Stanley Boulevard. In conclusion, he expressed reluctance with denying the application Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 December 9, 1998