SR 06:245 - Laserfiche WebLink

Page 2 of2 on. Over the past ten years this neighborhood has experienced a great deal of investment in the existing homes in the form of remodels, upgrades and additions. In our opinion these individual property upgrades have significantly enhanced the quality and the desirability of the neighborhood as a whole. It also lead us to further believe that adding on to our existing home was a very good option. We also considered moving to a larger home in various other Pleasanton neighborhoods, and have been looking for an appropriate home for over 5 years. We finally came to the conclusion that staying in the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, and expanding our current floor plan, was our best option. We love the feel of this neighborhood, it's proximity to downtown and we have also grown very fond of many of our neighbors on Mirador Court. When we decided to move forward with this plan to add space, we interviewed 4 different architects, all with significant experience in Pleasanton remodels with ties to this city. We wanted someone who could ensure the architectural features fit in with the neighborhood and also could "add to" the aesthetics, and the appeal, of our court. We also were looking for someone who fully understood the planning and zoning regulations established by the city. We retained Peter Shutts, and his architectural firm, because he met all of these criteria and we were very pleased with his vision for our new home. To meet our current and future space needs we concluded that we had to increase our existing space by around 1200-1300 square feet, or - 75% increase over what we currently have. In our initial discussions around designing our expansion, we focused on the possibility of doing this all on the ground floor, as we knew the cost of constructing a second story would be significantly higher and we would likely have to move out of our home for a longer period. After exploring every possible option to maintain a single story configuration, we concluded our only choice was to put the majority of our expansion into a new second story. We preliminarily spoke with 9 of our neighbors regarding our plans. All were positive and supportive of the idea, but several were also eager to see and understand our plans, once they were completed. Several also indicated that they are also considering the possibility of adding a second story at some point in the future. They are therefore very interested in following the progression of our proposed project for the benefit of their own future plans. In working with our architect we took specific measures, with expected higher construction costs, to make the fa~ade as attractive and unobtrusive as reasonably possible, both fitting into, and also enhancing, our street and the neighborhood. We kept the roof line 6 feet below the required limit, we limited the number of windows on the rear of the house where we anticipated possible privacy concerns, and we also have agreed to a slight reduction in the second story footprint. We have also agreed, at significant costs outside our original budget, to plant up to 3 new trees in the rear yard to mitigate privacy concerns. We also constructed story poles to outline, for our neighbors who expressed concerns, the basic height and configuration ofthe rearmost roof and window locations. We believe the city has established very defined and reasonable zoning and building regulations to ensure that, while home owners have a right to enhance and develop their property, it must be done within well established standards related to safety, neighborhood preservation and general impact to neighboring property owners. We have fully complied with these established regulations and have additionally altered our proposal to mitigate privacy concerns by several neighbors. We firmly believe our proposal is fair, reasonable and just, under the present guidelines and regulations set forth by the City of Pleasant on, and should be allowed to proceed. We believe the objections of certain neighbors are not reasonable, or rational, and attempt to unjustly prevent us, as property owners, from exercising our rights under the law to enhance and develop our home as we are entitled. 6/9/2006