PC 052715 - Laserfiche WebLink

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 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 27, 2015 Page 12 of 18