My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 081314
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
PC 081314
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:19:41 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 4:14:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/13/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
Mr. Weinstein stated that until the 1980's, the Zoning Ordinance did not require a design <br />review process for single - family residential additions, which might account for some of <br />the discrepancies between the City's building permit records and what was built in that <br />neighborhood. <br />Chair O'Connor stated that he was assuming that because the CC &Rs prohibited <br />second - stories when they were initially written, the six homes must have added their <br />second - stories at a later time. <br />Ms. Wallis replied that could be the case <br />Commissioner Allen stated that she was out on the property yesterday and it appears <br />like the existing second -story homes are not on Hamilton Way but at the very back or at <br />the court, around the perimeter of this development. She asked staff if that was correct. <br />Ms. Wallis confirmed that there are no second -story homes on Hamilton Way and that <br />Commissioner Allen's assumption would be valid based on the map. <br />As a follow -up to Commissioner Ritter's question on precedents and how second stories <br />were handled in the past, Commissioner Allen noted that the staff report states that <br />there were two occasions in the past 20 years where owners did come forward with <br />proposals to build a second story and those were deferred. She asked staff to clarify <br />what did happen when these proposals had come forward and what the resolution was. <br />Ms. Wallis replied that in the first case in 1999, the application went all the way to the <br />Planning Commission as well as to the City Council, and the City Council continued the <br />item and directed the applicant and neighbors to try and resolve the issue. She <br />indicated that the applicant never came back, and no single -story or two -story addition <br />was ever constructed on that home. <br />Ms. Wallis continued that the second proposal in the 2000's was likewise appealed all <br />the way up to the City Council. She explained that one Councilmember was absent, <br />and because the vote was a 2 -2 split, the item was continued to a future meeting. She <br />indicated that prior to the second City Council meeting, the applicant withdrew the <br />application so no final decision was ever reached either. She added that at that point, <br />the applicant came back and voluntarily submitted for a single -story addition. <br />Chair O'Connor inquired if there are any view easements in this area. <br />Ms. Wallis replied that she is not aware of any. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br />Greg Munn, Principal of Design Tech Associates, representing the applicants, stated <br />that he was hired by the Schmitts to design an addition and remodel to their home. He <br />indicated that he had heard a little bit about the underlying issues regarding two -story <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 13, 2014 Page 4 of 32 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.