Laserfiche WebLink
there are no two-story homes listed, and the maximum FAR of the two largest homes <br />are 32 percent and 23 percent, respectively. He noted that even with more than the <br />typical square footage, the two largest homes within the 300-foot radius are still single <br />story, considerably less than the maximum allowable FAR, and not of any impact to <br />their surrounding neighbors, in stark contrast to the applicants' proposed second story <br />addition. <br />Mr. Persin acknowledged that over many years, approximately one percent of the <br />homes in the Val Vista development have been increased in size from one to two <br />stories. He indicated that he had verified with staff that in none of these other <br />12 instances were there any objections or appeals from surrounding neighbors filed with <br />or communicated to the City Planning Commission. He noted that it was okay with <br />those neighbors in their specific situations to allow the second-story additions to be <br />built, but it is not okay with them in this specific situation to allow this second story, as <br />proposed, to be built. <br />Mr. Persin further noted that on page 12 of the staff report, it states: “Staff believes that <br />in this case there are no design options, short of removing the second-story addition, <br />which would satisfactorily address the neighbors’ concern. Given that the addition <br />meets all of the Code requirements, including height, and is typical of second-story <br />additions approved in other areas of the City, staff does not believe it is appropriate to <br />deny the application just because it is a second-story addition.”He indicated that <br />having no Code restrictions prohibiting two-story additions in the Val Vista development <br />does not mean that the Planning Commission should simply rubber-stamp the <br />applicants' proposed addition.He added that it is their understanding that the Planning <br />commission is composed of Pleasanton residents just like themselves and that it is their <br />hope that as Pleasanton residents, the Commission will place itself in their shoes when <br />it comes to examining the unique and problematic circumstances of allowing a <br />second-story addition to be built in this unusual property configuration. <br />Mr. Persin then referred to a section of page 8 of the staff report: “The existing <br />juxtaposition of the home on the subject property and the homes on the surrounding <br />properties make for a challenging situation to mitigate all concerns from all parties <br />involved.” He stated that in dealing with the City planners, they have been continuously <br />been told of staff's desire to try and find a compromise between the applicants and the <br />appellants; however, at this point, they believe the City has been remiss in finding a real <br />compromise between the parties involved. He noted that to get their project pushed <br />through, the applicants have made modifications relating only to window size and type <br />and the planting of foliage. He added that although these are concessions, they are <br />basically minor ones and made mainly as a way to placate the planner’s continued <br />approval of their project. <br />Mr. Persin stated that the appellants feel the applicants can make stronger, more viable <br />efforts to expand their home in a less impacting manner which would be more <br />representative of a real compromise. He agreed that while this situation may be <br />challenging, as the planner stated, this should not translate to a default position that the <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 25, 2010 Page 7 of 38 <br /> <br />