My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 060811
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
PC 060811
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
7/18/2011 3:24:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/8/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
<br />application. She noted that it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide that <br />information, although for the most part, staff knows which areas have owners and <br />business associations and pursues the matter if the applicant does not check the box. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank asked staff whether or not this occurred in this application. <br /> <br />Ms. Amos stated that the application was filled out completely; the applicant checked <br />the box and provided the appropriate correspondence in terms of emails that show that <br />she did have conversations with the association but indicated that she wanted to pursue <br />her application anyway. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank commented that the box then does not do anything for the City. <br /> <br />Ms. Harryman explained that it would be for the applicants to inform staff that they <br />notified or had discussion with their association. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce inquired, if staff believed this was a tutoring facility and the CUP <br />runs with the land, and the application occupies the same footprint as the approved <br />tutoring facility, if it would have to come before the Commission. <br /> <br />Ms. Stern replied that use would have to be identical in terms of operational <br />characteristics. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce inquired if they had to be identical and not just substantially the <br />same in terms of age, range, ratio, and hours of operation. <br /> <br />Ms. Stern said yes. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce commented that the terms are pretty narrow. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank commented that he was under the impression that the reason the <br />checkbox was included on the form was to prevent applicants from bypassing their <br />homeowners association. He stated that it seems to him that when one moves into an <br />owners association, he or she agrees to its rules and regulations, and any changes to <br />be made to the house would first go through the architectural review board. He noted <br />that one homeowner in his area received a City permit to put a roof on his house, but he <br />did not have an association approval, and he had to take the whole roof off and put the <br />right roof back on. He added that it did not make anyone happy, but if the association <br />does not do that, then there is no reason to have an association. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank continued that he recognizes the issue with this application and <br />applauds what the applicant is trying to do, but it appears like the Commission is <br />bypassing the process. He noted that when he asked the applicant what he intended to <br />do if he got City approval, he was hoping that the applicant would say that he would go <br />back to the association and see if they can work something out. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 8, 2011 Page 16 of 22 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.