Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Commissioner Mahern expressed concern because neither of the hou s are built at this <br />point, in particular. since the plans will not be reviewed by the Desi n Review Board. She <br />was also concerned that the owner was not sure whether or not he w s going to live in the <br />proposed structure. Mr. Swift replied that it really did not matter if e builder lived in it or <br />not, and noted that the same owner would probably not be in the ho se forever anyway. <br />What mattered was if one unit is owner-occupied. <br /> <br />Robert Byrd returned to the podium. He noted that the gentlemen w 0 had spoken against <br />the application could do the same as he is doing. He felt that if a f: ily wants to have a <br />parent or even a child in a separate facility, that it should be their pr rogative to do so. <br /> <br />TIlE PUBLIC HEARING W AS CLOSED, <br /> <br />Commissioner Finch noted that he was one of the fIrst in Pleasanton apply for a granny <br />flat and had a hard time getting approval. He supported the idea of ranny flats, whether for <br />a parent, child, or other party. He felt the property was well-suited or the proposed project <br />and that it is a good addition to Pleasanton, and that probably the Ci would be seeing more <br />of them. <br /> <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright said he could not go along with the proposed roject. He felt that the <br />State's intent was for granny flats to be used only for family member, not to the general <br />public. He could not support the project. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Commissioner Michelotti said she felt somewhat like Commissioner <br />State law they are required to approve projects such as this if they ar <br />Municipal Code. <br /> <br />right did, but that by <br />in compliance with the <br /> <br />Chairman Hovingh reminded the Commission that those opposed to e project could appeal <br />the decision to City Council. Mr. Beougher agreed with that comme t. <br /> <br /> <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Michelotti, seconded by C mmi,,~toner McGuirk <br />making the required conditional use permit findings and approv' Case UP-92-46, <br />subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit A, <br /> <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />A YES: Commissioners Mahern, McGuirk, Michelotti, and Ch 'rman Hovingh <br />NOES: Commissioner Wright <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC-92-82 was entered and adopted approving Case U -92-46 as motioned. <br /> <br />Those in opposition were told the decision can be appealed to City C uncil within 15 days. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 1992 <br /> <br />Page 11 <br />