16 - Laserfiche WebLink

she will need to put the matter of children aside and lean toward consistency in the neighborhood. She stated that she believes there has been a compromise since the neighbors are accepting all the different aspects of the additions with the exception of this balcony that happens to be not consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood.. She indicated that at this point, she is a little bit more in favor of the appellant. Commissioner Balch agreed with respect to the children and their specific concerns. He stated that he has a child and they have a pool, and they we have a neighbor who has a balcony into their backyard, although he was not a homeowner there at the time the balcony was added and does not know in hindsight what he would have done in this regard. Commissioner Balch stated that one of his elements is that people should not be making rules that are not known at the forefront, so they should not be putting in restrictions that are not already known when they come into the game. He added that that is a hard thing to reconcile when people actually get to a point like this. He indicated that he is generally opposed to balconies that look in either direction other than one's own property contour: front or back, but not sides. He noted that the Commission has considered several additions recently and has been able to get the neighbors to work things out or minimize or reduce the impacts. He further noted that one in particular went forward because it was on the side but in front of the neighboring house looking up at the mountains. He added that the Commission has allowed a second-story balcony in an area where there were mostly single-story homes and, in fact, it was inconsistent with the neighborhood, but the Commission felt it met the conditions in terms of the strictest letter of the law. He pointed out that he was coming to this one a little differently, and there are unique concerns and issues. Commissioner Balch stated that his largest concern and what he has not reconciled in terms of getting over the hump is that he does not see how privacy is not already hampered by this view as demonstrated in the exhibit before the Commission. He added that it appears privacy is already compromised and asked how much more compromised it becomes with an addition of a balcony that is pretty minimal and does not protrude out to the full first-floor distance. He stated that he does not see it as much more intrusive than what can be seen through this window right now. He indicated that this is where he is at this point and is a little bit on the opposite side of Commissioner Piper. Acting Chair Ritter stated that the Commission has seen a lot of plans come before it in apartments and houses, and it is always looking at who gets what view and someone claiming that a second-story addition is taking away that view. He indicated that that is kind of a challenge because no one can own a view; one can just own a plot of land. Acting Chair Ritter stated that first of all, he believes that this proposal meets all the requirements set by the code, and that is the reason it was approved by the Zoning Administrator. He indicated that, on the flipside, he does not personally know how many people in Pleasanton have a balcony out their backyard, but he has seen a lot of EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, May 27, 2015 Page 9 of 14