My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 090909
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
PC 090909
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:41:11 PM
Creation date
9/23/2009 9:32:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/9/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Pentin stated that he has a web designer in town, he has never been to <br />her home but she does great work, and he would hate to see her affected by this. <br />Ms. Decker replied that staff was concentrating on non-exempt and that it might be <br />important to update the information, such as removing the word “typewriter” and adding <br />in more state-of-the-art office equipment. <br />Commissioner Blank suggested language such as “a business that never receives <br />customers on-site and/or that has no on-site inventory is categorized as exempt.” He <br />added that this would thereby include writers, web designers, programmers, <br />independent contractors, and all those who do all of their work on-line and on-site. <br />Chair Pearce stated that if the Commission is considering significant changes, she <br />would like to see the item return to the Commission before it goes to the City Council. <br />Commissioners Blank and O’Connor both agreed. <br />Commissioner O’Connor requested that the work “audibly” be added to “visually” in <br />Item L under Section 18.104.030 on page 2. <br />Chair Pearce recalled that the Commission had a discussion on a wedding dress home <br />occupation, and there were concerns about the use of one room as opposed to multiple <br />rooms in the house. <br />Ms. Decker stated that she spent time reviewing this particular example, and staff <br />considered this a non-exempt home occupation permit. She added that the area staff <br />was considering over one-room size was actually more like a living room/dining room <br />area, and the Planning Commission thought it was simply four walls defining that space. <br />She noted that some of the other concerns were the shipping and receiving of dresses, <br />storage of dresses in more than one room, in the garage, as well as customers coming <br />to the house. She indicated that staff has not received any complaints to date about <br />this home occupation. <br />Chair Pearce stated that houses tend to become a little less structured and inquired if <br />“one room” or “x-number of square feet” should be used in terms of the house. <br />Ms. Decker replied that Item B under Section 18.104.030 actually states “…one room of <br />a dwelling or more than 50 square feet of an accessory building or garage.” <br />Commissioner Pearce stated that she thinks if it is ancillary to the house, such as a big <br />room rather than half a house taken over the business, then it would no longer be <br />ancillary but non-exempt. <br />Commissioner O’Connor stated that he felt it was appropriate to say “no more than one <br />room” as there are not that many people who have 50-square-foot rooms in their <br />homes. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 9, 2009 Page 13 of 16 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.