My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 052715
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
PC 052715
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:47:53 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 4:37:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/27/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
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 />Commissioner Ritter moved to uphold the appeal, thereby overturning a portion <br />of the Zoning Administrator's approval of Case P15 -0037 relating to the rear <br />balcony. <br />Commissioner Piper seconded the motion. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br />AYES: Commissioners Ritter, Nagler, and Piper. <br />NOES: Commissioner Balch <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />RECUSED: None <br />ABSENT: Commissioners Allen and O'Connor <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 27, 2015 Page 16 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.