My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2017
>
100317
>
11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/27/2017 4:35:21 PM
Creation date
9/27/2017 3:37:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
10/3/2017
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
11
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
119
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
multi-family unit which would provide rental income. Mr. Wedeking elaborated on the <br /> apprehension regarding health and safety issues and proposed versus current use of <br /> the residence. <br /> Joe Phan, a Valley Trails resident, echoed the comments addressed by the neighbors <br /> and Valley Trails residents. Mr. Phan described the illicit activities he had witnessed at <br /> the subject property and referenced the police records for the residence. <br /> Sue Robles, applicant, rebutted that she has no intention of renting out the property and <br /> that the residence is occupied by multiple generations of her family. She addressed the <br /> parking concerns stating her family has four vehicles, the same number as several other <br /> neighbors. Ms. Robles acknowledged her son's criminal record and assured the <br /> Commission that the activities mentioned by neighbors have ceased since her son went <br /> into a rehabilitation facility two months ago. <br /> Commissioner Ritter asked Ms. Robles if any vehicles were being parked in the two-car <br /> garage. <br /> Ms. Robles replied no and that there was no intention of parking vehicles in the garage <br /> in the future. <br /> THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> Commissioner Brown asked if the Commission should take into consideration health <br /> and safety issues when rendering a recommendation or decision on the application. <br /> Ms. Harryman restated the comments made by Mr. Beaudin earlier in the evening, <br /> explaining that PMC section 18.20.030 takes into consideration health and safety issues <br /> but that they should be related to design and aesthetics, for example windows, for a <br /> design review application and not use as would be reviewed for a use permit <br /> application. <br /> Commissioner Ritter and Chair Balch asked staff to clarify that an approval tonight <br /> would be for the planning application only and that if approved the applicant would then <br /> submit plans to building for building permit issuance at which time staff would review the <br /> plans for conformance to building codes. <br /> Mr. Beaudin agreed with the process as described, adding that planning does take into . <br /> consideration things such as window size and placement. <br /> Commissioner Ritter asked if a revised set of plans would be submitted to the <br /> Commission because the ones attached to the Staff Report did not have an architect <br /> stamp and had discrepancies; for example the Staff Report identified eight bedrooms <br /> but the applicant said there would only be six plus an office. <br /> Mr. Beaudin explained the definition of a bedroom in the PMC differs from the definition <br /> the applicant uses—if the space meets a certain size threshold, has a closet and an <br /> egress window it is a bedroom by definition regardless of the intended use. Also, he <br /> said, planning applications do not require the level of detail on plans that building <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 12, 2017 Page 4 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.