My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN081815
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
CCMIN081815
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/14/2015 12:54:17 PM
Creation date
10/14/2015 12:54:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/18/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
the property on her other side as well. She asked that the Council uphold the Planning Commission's <br /> action. <br /> Mr. Cummings added that Mrs. Kiziloglu originally indicated that she wished to use the balcony as a <br /> place to enjoy her tea while viewing the mountains. What might not be evident from that is that one <br /> must look onto his backyard in order to enjoy those views. <br /> Vice Mayor Brown closed the public hearing. <br /> BREAK: <br /> Vice Mayor Brown called a brief recess from 9:23 to 9:32 p.m. <br /> Councilmember Narum said that as a former Planning Commissioner she always found these types of <br /> neighborhood disputes particularly difficult. Looking at it from that perspective she said she found the <br /> bulk of the project to be acceptable, if not ideal, but that she had concerns about the impacts of balcony <br /> and the precedent that would set for the neighborhood. She noted that the examples provided of similar <br /> balconies are in fact located in other neighborhoods and not really indicative of what might be <br /> appropriate on the type of lots found here. With regards to Condition of Approval No. 7 she said she <br /> could find no evidence suggesting that Cummings' privacy would be negatively impacted by the project <br /> if the balcony were excluded and she would recommend the elimination of that condition altogether. <br /> Councilmember Olson noted that he also served on the Planning Commission. He concurred with <br /> Councilmember Narum with exception of her thoughts regarding Condition of Approval No. 7, noting <br /> that it is very common in Pleasanton to use vegetation as a mitigant as it was done here. He sensed <br /> that both parties were reasonable and educated people who love this community and hoped that over <br /> time the neighborhood would be able to elevate itself beyond these events. <br /> Councilmember Pentin said he is also a former Planning Commissioner and as such tends to look at <br /> this as a land use issue. He agreed that these types of neighborhood disputes are particularly difficult <br /> and assured everyone that he takes the time to read every report and communication related to each <br /> case. He responded to those who complained that staff had not moved this project through the process <br /> quickly enough, stating that staff in fact did an exemplary job and it is unfair to expect an item like this <br /> to make it onto the very next agenda. With regards to the project itself, he said that its scope is actually <br /> quite large. Sometimes when that is the case the applicant does not get everything they want and in <br /> this instance, they have been asked to forfeit the balcony. He said that privacy, in whatever form it <br /> might exist, is particularly important to him and the proposed balcony unfairly interferes with what the <br /> Cummings might reasonably expect. He said that whatever the impetus, he felt the vegetation required <br /> by Condition of Approval No. 7 was a good idea and he would therefore recommend that the entire <br /> action of the Commission be upheld. <br /> Vice Mayor Brown said that as a residential real estate agent she has seen that major changes to a <br /> home, like what is proposed here, can sometimes lessen the desirability of a neighborhood for some <br /> individuals. She thought the neighborhood had therefore shown considerable goodwill in not contesting <br /> any portion of the project other than the balcony. She said she was personally offended by the <br /> suggestion that any decision made by the Council would be influenced by race or culture rather than <br /> what has been identified as right for this community by the General Plan, Municipal Code and Zoning <br /> Ordinance. She agreed that privacy is subjective and respected the Cummings' position as well as their <br /> willingness to compromise and accept the remainder of the project. <br /> Councilmember Narum reiterated her lack of support for a restrictive covenant in absence of the <br /> balcony, particularly given that no material changes to the western facade of the home have been <br /> proposed. Looking back to the Zoning Administrator's action it seems clear that the condition was <br /> crafted to mitigate privacy concerns related to the balcony. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 10 of 14 August 18,2015 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.