My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
17
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2011
>
031511
>
17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2011 3:39:11 PM
Creation date
3/10/2011 3:29:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
3/15/2011
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
17
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
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
Ms. Amos replied that while the applicants were repairing a water damage on that <br />elevation, they thought it would be a good opportunity to install a window since the wall <br />was already open. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that he thought it was a mold issue. <br />Ms. Amos suggested that the applicant respond to this matter. <br />Commissioner O'Connor inquired if the Municipal Code prevents the applicants from <br />installing a window on the side of the house and whether the applicants are requesting <br />a variance. <br />Ms. Amos answered no to both. <br />Commissioner O'Connor commented that he can understand that the applicants want <br />sunlight to come into the house, but he was not certain why they would install a window <br />on the south side of the house. Additionally, he indicated that planting a tree would <br />block that sunlight. He also noted that he received a number of letters and emails and <br />asked Ms. Amos if she knew how many of those letters and emails were in support of <br />the application or opposed to it. <br />Ms. Amos replied that she did not have those numbers readily available. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br />Kong Susanto, appellant, stated that staff encouraged them to settle and compromise <br />and presented many suggestions for lighting, higher window sills, opaque windows, <br />planting trees in front of the window, and options other than opening a window on the <br />south end wall, but the applicant rejected them. He commented that at the last hearing, <br />the Zoning Administrator approved the application, and they felt that the City has not <br />been sensitive to the privacy issue they raised so they appealed the decision to the <br />Commission. <br />He indicated that the distance from the window to the fence is approximately 9 to <br />11 feet, and the distance from the fence to their sliding door is 16 feet. He stated that a <br />distance of 25 feet is very close, and opening a second -story window would definitely <br />impact their privacy because the window would look into the primary areas of their <br />home. He added that the distance between their own rear window and the neighbor's <br />backyard is at least 40 feet, which is twice the distance. <br />Mr. Susanto stated that they also have second -story windows on three sides of their <br />house, one of which faces the applicants' home, but there are no privacy issues <br />because the window is approximately 80 feet away. He noted that there are a lot of tall <br />trees in their backyard which the previous owner planted as a screen to provide some <br />DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 9, 2011 Page 2 of 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.