My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 06:245
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2006
>
SR 06:245
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/3/2006 12:28:34 PM
Creation date
11/3/2006 12:20:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
11/7/2006
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 06:245
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
265
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Stan and Stacey Knight <br /> <br />Page I of2 <br /> <br />.3 <br /> <br />Natalie Amos <br /> <br />From: Murphy, Erin <br />Sent: Thursday, May 11,20063:07 PM <br />To: Natalie Amos <br />Cc: Gentile, Shawn <br />Subject: Stan and Stacey Knight <br /> <br />Dear Ms. Amos, <br /> <br />I am writing on behalf of my husband and myself to express our support for Stan and Stacey Knight's proposed <br />remodel. We live across the street from them on Mirador Court and, for several reasons, wholeheartedly believe <br />that they should be able to remodel their house as proposed. <br /> <br />First, we believe that, as a matter of right, the Knights should be able to remodel their house provided they have <br />complied with all zoning and permitting requirements imposed by the City of Pleasanton. We understand that the <br />Knight's proposed addition is currently (and always was) within the zoning limits adopted by Pleasanton. The <br />Knights are not asking for a variance or other special consideration to remodel their home. Therefore, we believe <br />that their remodel should have been approved automatically. We understand that anytime a neighbor undertakes <br />construction there will be inconveniences such as noise and dust. However, as residents - and voters - of <br />Pleasanton, the time to address these concerns is when zoning requirements are established. We, as a <br />community, have decided what is and is not acceptable for homes in Pleasanton. Clearly, what the Knights are <br />proposing has been deemed acceptable by the residents of Pleasanton. Accordingly, one or two unhappy <br />neighbors should not have the power to undermine what the community as a whole has determined. While we <br />understand that a small minority of the Knight's neighbors may be distressed by changes that may occur to their <br />view, light source, etc., we think it is ridiculous that this small contingency has the power to delay the Knight's <br />project for months, simply on the basis that they "don't want it." Given the fact that the Knight's initial design was <br />within zoning limits, one hearing should have decided the matter. They simply proposed to do what was within <br />their rights - it should have been the end of the story. Once the neighbors raised concerns, the Knights agreed to <br />downsize their proposed addition to accommodate these concerns. This is not something they were required to <br />do to make their plans comply, rather, it was an effort to amicably resolve the situation. The fact that this effort <br />has also failed and the neighbors can continue to appeal is outrageous. On what basis are they appealing? As a <br />taxpayer, I can think of many more legitimate uses for public funds than allowing frivolous appeals that have no <br />basis other than a personal agenda. If this had been a question of a variance or some other use of the property <br />that was outside of the standard acceptable use, that is one thing - but multiple appeals over an addition that is <br />well within established regulations? Why? <br /> <br />Furthermore, our neighborhood has many existing two-story homes - on Mirador Court alone, 25% of the homes <br />are two story. On E. Angela, there is a similar, if not higher percentage of two-story homes. Clearly, the Knight's <br />proposed addition will fit within the overall look and feel of the neighborhood. As a property owner, each of us has <br />an obligation to understand what changes may occur in our neighborhood. One cannot buy a home in an area <br />with multiple two-story homes and then complain when another one is added. If the complaining neighbors <br />wanted to ensure they bought in a neighborhood with only single story homes, or that they would have perpetually <br />unobstructed views, they should have bought elsewhere. They cannot say they were unaware of the possibility <br />that a single-story home would be renovated. Someone with such a high intolerance for change is not only iII- <br />suited to city living, but also naIve to its realities. <br /> <br />Finally, from a purely selfish point of view, we believe the Knights should be allowed to proceed with their plans <br />because we will directly benefit. The nicer and more valuable their home is, the higher property value our home <br />can command. And on a more personal note, the Knights are great neighbors - we feel very lucky that we live on <br />their street and would like to see them happy in their new and improved home. They are a friendly, courteous <br />family with a great sense of community involvement and pride, and Mirador Court would be a less enjoyable place <br />without them. <br /> <br />Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. <br /> <br />6/9/2006 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.