SR 06:245 - Laserfiche WebLink

Page I of2 Natalie Amos From: _ L _ La. Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 8:06 PM To: Natalie Amos Subject: PADR-1472 Natalie: First of alii would like to thank you for your professionalism and attention to our request and concerns. I realize is very difficult at times to mediate issues such as this. In response to the zoning administration hearing notes. Item II. Site and Neighborhood Description East Angela is sloped as noted but the original design allowed double story homes in cui de sacs as noted in the aerial of second story homes "exhibit C". Other sloped areas allowed double story homes only on the higher or raised areas. Item IV Municipal Code Conformance The staffs analysis recognizes the fact that the proposed project is "expanding the building envelope". It also mis- states that the buildings will blend in with neighborhood character and does not impact public views. The neighbors are the public. The staff has also neglected to recognize Sec.18.32.01 0 Item S. To ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling. Item C. To protect one-family dwellings from lack of privacy. Item I to protect residential properties from unsightliness and other objectionable influences. The staff has note addressed Sec. 18.04.010 Objectives ItemS ItemC ItemJ I find no information concerning these questions addressed in my prior email. I do not find any evidence of any appraisal service to access the devaluation to our property values due to this proposed addition. Staff did not comment on this item, why? Additionally there is no mention of Sec.18.20.030 Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 The staff does recognize that there are exceptions to development standards that would allow them (Knights) to encroach into their rear yard setback. Staff stated the proposed single story addition has not reached the maximum allowed encroachment in the rear yard. The applicants felt that their addition would not set a president. This is a mis-quote by the staff. Stacy stated from my notes. "Get used to it is the sign of the times in Pleasanton". The staff stated that the city does not have a view preservation ordinance for private view. Please explain and elaborate on Sec 18.20.030 item # 4 and # 6 regarding exterior lighting. 6/9/2006