SR 06:245 - Laserfiche WebLink

Stan and Stacey Knight Page 1 of2 Natalie Amos From: Natalie Amos Sent: Thursday, May 11, 20064:49 PM To: 'Murphy, Erin' Subject: RE: Stan and Stacey Knight Dear Ms. Murphey, Thank you for your e-mail regarding the proposed additions to the Knight's residence. I will add your comments, along with this e-mail, to the Planning Commission staff report for the Commissioner's review and consideration of the Knights project. Should you want to receive a copy of the staff report that will be presented before the hearing body (Planning Commission), I would be happy to provide you with one. Also, should you have any further questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Natalie E. Amos Assistant Planner CITY OF PLEASANTON (925) 931-5613 Planning and Community Development P.O, Box 520 Pleasanton, CA 94566 -----Original Message----- From: Murphy, Erin [mailto~ Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 ~ To: Natalie Amos Cc: Gentile, Shawn Subject: Stan and Stacey Knight Dear Ms. Amos, I am writing on behalf of my husband and myself to express our support for Stan and Stacey Knight's proposed remodel. We live across the street from them on Mirador Court and, for several reasons, wholeheartedly believe that they should be able to remodel their house as proposed. First, we believe that, as a matter of right, the Knights should be able to remodel their house provided they have complied with all zoning and permitting requirements imposed by the City of Pleasanton. We understand that the Knight's proposed addition is currently (and always was) within the zoning limits adopted by Pleasanton. The Knights are not asking for a variance or other special consideration to remodel their home. Therefore, we believe that their remodel should have been approved automatically. We understand that anytime a neighbor undertakes construction there will be inconveniences such as noise and dust. However, as residents - and voters - of Pleasanton, the time to address these concerns is when zoning requirements are established. We, as a community, have decided what is and is not acceptable for homes in Pleasanton. Clearly, what the Knights are proposing has been deemed acceptable by the residents of Pleasanton. Accordingly, one or two unhappy neighbors should not have the power to undermine what the community as a whole has determined. While we understand that a small minority of the Knight's neighbors may be distressed by changes that may occur to their view, light source, etc., we think it is ridiculous that this small contingency has the power to delay the Knight's project for months, simply on the basis that they 6/9/2006