Laserfiche WebLink
restrictions that are not already known when they come into the game. He added that <br />that is a hard thing to reconcile when people actually get to a point like this. He <br />indicated that he is generally opposed to balconies that look in either direction other <br />than one's own property contour: front or back, but not sides. He noted that the <br />Commission has considered several additions recently and has been able to get the <br />neighbors to work things out or minimize or reduce the impacts. He further noted that <br />one in particular went forward because it was on the side but in front of the neighboring <br />house looking up at the mountains. He added that the Commission has allowed a <br />second -story balcony in an area where there were mostly single -story homes and, in <br />fact, it was inconsistent with the neighborhood, but the Commission felt it met the <br />conditions in terms of the strictest letter of the law. He pointed out that he was coming <br />to this one a little differently, and there are unique concerns and issues. <br />Commissioner Balch stated that his largest concern and what he has not reconciled in <br />terms of getting over the hump is that he does not see how privacy is not already <br />hampered by this view as demonstrated in the exhibit before the Commission. He <br />added that it appears privacy is already compromised and asked how much more <br />compromised it becomes with an addition of a balcony that is pretty minimal and does <br />not protrude out to the full first -floor distance. He stated that he does not see it as much <br />more intrusive than what can be seen through this window right now. He indicated that <br />this is where he is at this point and is a little bit on the opposite side of Commissioner <br />Piper. <br />Acting Chair Ritter stated that the Commission has seen a lot of plans come before it in <br />apartments and houses, and it is always looking at who gets what view and someone <br />claiming that a second -story addition is taking away that view. He indicated that that is <br />kind of a challenge because no one can own a view; one can just own a plot of land. <br />Acting Chair Ritter stated that first of all, he believes that this proposal meets all the <br />requirements set by the code, and that is the reason it was approved by the Zoning <br />Administrator. He indicated that, on the flipside, he does not personally know how <br />many people in Pleasanton have a balcony out their backyard, but he has seen a lot of <br />balconies on the front, which seems to be the norm in Pleasanton. He noted that in this <br />case, it does not appear like there is more surface area of windows to look out and that <br />the balcony is out a little farther. He added that something he would propose is that <br />windows be a little higher more for lighting during the day, instead of a lower window <br />that looks down. He stated that he is not certain he likes the balcony and noted that the <br />appellant has agreed on just about everything on the additions except the balcony. He <br />added that the additions will make the square footage larger, and the value of the <br />property is going to go up which will help the neighborhood. He indicated that he is <br />leaning more with Commissioner Piper and would like to approve the additions but <br />without the balcony in the back. He added the applicant could maybe have a balcony <br />on the front of the same story so they could go out and have air upstairs. <br />Commissioner Balch referred to the plans and noted the master bedroom /retreat with <br />the laundry room to the left and a bathroom in the middle. He indicated that he is <br />familiar with several homes in Pleasanton that have a balcony off of the master <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 27, 2015 Page 12 of 18 <br />