PC 010908 - Laserfiche WebLink

what he will see when he looks out of his window and if the panels would be glaring back at his house when the sun rises in the east. Commissioner Fox asked Mr. Allen how he arrived at the 25,000 square feet of cubic volume. Mr. Allen explained that the tennis court, asingle-floor, 8,475-square-foot structure, added to the house with an 8,400-square-foot pad, would be equivalent to approximately 16,000 square feet; however, adding the cubic volume of the floor space of the tennis court to the cubic volume of the floor space of the main house plus the ground-floor coverage with the building pad size, depending on how much of the top floor is open to the bottom floor, would result in a range from the low 20,000 square feet to the high 20,000 square feet in terms of the cubic volume equivalent of a two-story house of a similar size. Becky Randall thanked the staff and the neighbors for the time they have put into this prof ect. She read a letter she had written describing her residential history in Pleasanton. She indicated that she bought her home in 1987 and had recently remodeled both the interior of the house and the exterior property. She handed the Commissioners some photos of what her property looks like taken from her perspective, noting that she was careful not to infringe on other people's property. She then related how she had purchased another property in the area during the remodel of her current house, and the next-door 3,200-square-foot house was sold and demolished and then replaced with a 7,000-square-foot house a few feet away from property fence and infringing on their privacy. She handed the Commissioners some pictures of this house. She noted that the proposed Adams home is beautifully designed but too large for the size and shape of the site and that it would be the largest home in their neighborhood. She indicated that the Adams are great neighbors and, given the concessions, she is now happy with their house; however, she is torn because it is a large house which may look fine once it is screened, but she loves her house and her property and does not want to see the tennis court. She expressed concern about the drainage issues and others issues that come with a large house located just above her own. Mr. Adams stated that he will work with the neighbors with respect to the landscaping, irrigation, and fence issues. He noted that with respect to the largeness of the house, it will not have a gravitational impact on the neighbors and the only impact would be the view they would be looking at from their properties. He pointed out that the mass is not the issue and because the lot is long, each neighbor will see only one part of the building; no one neighbor will see the entire structure. He indicated that from the Allens' house, the view impact is not the blocking of the alley, as the view that is being blocked by the building is the Adams' own backyard; he noted that they do have a right to privacy in their own backyard. He added that the Allens' house is perched above their own home and that it would be impossible to have any kind of private use in the back half of their own property because of the way the Allens' windows are set; the roof of tennis building, however, would block the Allens' view of their own swimming pool and backyard and would provide some privacy. With respect to the impacts from the Randalls' house, he stated that the house had been moved away from the Randalls' house and that he believed that while the visual impact cannot be totally obliterated, the landscaping would solve about 90 percent of the problem. He noted that when one moves into a house next to a very large vacant lot, there is a risk that development will take place at that lot, and that development may not be the neighbors' first choice. He added that the risk of that development should not be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 9, 2008 Page 18 of 28