My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
16
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
081815
>
16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/18/2015 11:40:25 AM
Creation date
8/11/2015 4:04:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
8/18/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
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
Commissioner Nagler asked if, technically and theoretically, the applicant has the ability <br /> to redesign the house in a way that there is no balcony, but another 500 square feet is <br /> added onto the building. <br /> Commissioner Piper noted that it could not be done because of the Floor Area Ratio <br /> (FAR). <br /> Commissioner Nagler asked staff if the applicant could add another 1.7 percent or <br /> 1.3 percent of square footage. <br /> Mr. Otto said yes. <br /> Commissioner Nagler further inquired, if there were a majority in support of this motion, <br /> if that action would give the applicant the ability to add whatever the percentage is and <br /> come back again to get the plans approved. <br /> Mr. Otto explained that if the applicant comes back with a changed plan that did not <br /> include the balcony, that would not be consistent with the motion that is being made at <br /> this point, which is to approve the project as shown, except without the balcony; it does <br /> not add square footage. <br /> Acting Chair Ritter stated that he would not be opposed to letting the applicant have <br /> square footage. <br /> Commissioner Nagler stated that he would support the motion but he does not know if it <br /> would be appropriate for the Commission to say to just lop off a deck. He indicated that <br /> he thinks the Commission ought to allow the applicant instead to redesign the house up <br /> to what is allowed in the code, without the second-story balcony, and to resubmit those <br /> plans to Planning for final approval. <br /> Commissioner Piper stated that that she thinks an amendment is not necessary as the <br /> applicant could come back and do that at any time. <br /> Ms. Harryman said that was correct. She indicated that the applicant can either appeal <br /> the Planning Commission decision to the Council or go back to the drawing board and <br /> resubmit. <br /> Commissioner Nagler stated that the applicant could submit a plan that complies to <br /> code and come up with exactly this because this complies to code. He indicated that he <br /> just wants to make sure that her hands are not tied so she can do what she wants as <br /> long as it does not contain a second-story balcony. <br /> After some discussion, the motion was re-stated for clarity. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, May 27, 2015 Page 13 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.