CCMIN021699 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Michelotti asked if more construction would be done on the barn in the future. Mr. Johnstone said the barn needs to be brought up to code in the future. Ms. Michelotti asked the difference in height from the present house to the house in the future. Mr. Johnstone believed it was 22 feet. Ms. Ayala asked if the plans showed the hip roof. Mr. Johnstone said the plans show a gable roof with flat ends. He is planning on slanting the roof to reduce the height at both ends. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, Suite 210, believed the design review process needed to be limited to design review issues. The design review process should not be a mini planned unit development process where essentially political decisions are made about the height, floor area ratio, and the basic standards for the use of properties in Pleasanton. He said in 1982 when he brought his plot plan to the Planning Department to see if he could make any home improvements, the rules were clear about the height limit, floor area ratios, and setbacks. When Jack Chestnut brought his plans to the City in 1998, he was told the plans had to go through a design review process. It seemed like a simple process, but the Planning Commission tamed down Mr. Chestnut's application for zoning reasons. He believed that the Planning Commission sided with neighbors who indicated they wanted a shorter, smaller house. If the design review process is applied as a mini planned unit development process, then no property owner will know what can be done with his or her property. If the design review process is to prohibit uses that are consistent with the City's zoning standard, then the zoning ordinance does not mean anything other than what Council decides on a given night. He did not want to see Pleasanton set such precedent. There needs to be clear simple rules under the zoning ordinance. He suggested Council follow the direction of the Planning staff, limit the design review process to design issues, and approve the Chestnuts' application. Mr. Chestnut addressed the concerns brought up in the report. The in-law quarters will be used for his wife's sister; it will not be rented out. He said no work has been done without pulling permits in advance. The garage will not be used for his son's business. His son is moving into the house, until he is able to sell his home in Fremont. He will live there until construction can be started. There was a concern about a fuel tank. He found out from Frank Bonde, the previous owner, that the tank was filled with dry ice and subsequently removed. He has a letter from the previous owner stating there was no contamination and there is no other fuel tank buried on the property. His escrow papers say the same thing. Pleasanton City Council 12 02/16/99 Minutes