16 - Laserfiche WebLink

balconies on the front, which seems to be the norm in Pleasanton. He noted that in this case, it does not appear like there is more surface area of windows to look out and that the balcony is out a little farther. He added that something he would propose is that windows be a little higher more for lighting during the day, instead of a lower window that looks down. He stated that he is not certain he likes the balcony and noted that the appellant has agreed on just about everything on the additions except the balcony. He added that the additions will make the square footage larger, and the value of the property is going to go up which will help the neighborhood. He indicated that he is leaning more with Commissioner Piper and would like to approve the additions but without the balcony in the back. He added the applicant could maybe have a balcony on the front of the same story so they could go out and have air upstairs. Commissioner Balch referred to the plans and noted the master bedroom/retreat with the laundry room to the left and a bathroom in the middle. He indicated that he is familiar with several homes in Pleasanton that have a balcony off of the master bedroom of some size, although not of this size which appears to be a coffee-table type sitting area where there is an area for the master bedroom to exit out. He stated that he sees this as a reasonable design and a great way to keep an eye on the pool, and that is why he could support the balcony and deny the appellant. He indicated that he is more comfortable with the balcony on the back because it goes to Valley Avenue, a road that is never going to change other than being a road, and there are no further homes beyond. He added that he does not think this is too encroaching on the neighbor's privacy, given that the privacy issue was already answered from the view existing from the windows. Commissioner Nagler stated that he does not know if what he is about to suggest is common since he is new to these controversies, but as far as giving some indication of where the Commission is, it is pretty clear this is a split vote, and if it would be appropriate for the Commission to finish the discussion for now and ask the applicant and appellant to see one more time if there is a compromise that can be worked out strictly about the balcony since nobody objects to the rest of the enterprise, and then reschedule this for a future meeting. He continued that if a compromise has been worked out, the Commission can consider it and hopefully endorse it; and if there is no compromise, the Commission can decide with it being clear that at least three or four of the Commissioners present are pretty clearly where they stand. Acting Chair Ritter commented that the Commission has done that before. Ms. Harryman stated that there is that option; however, the Commissioner's Handbook actually discusses tie votes in this particular situation where there are four Commissioners present and other Commissioners are absent, and what is required when there is a tie vote is that the item be carried forward to the next meeting in which a quorum of Commissioners are present. Commissioner Balch stated that he has seen one of these before and, for lack of a better characterization, the parties try to persuade the other side, and if that does not EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, May 27, 2015 Page 10 of 14