Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. ' . , . . . <br />Acting Chairperson Arkin expressed concern that the Diazes were relying on trees that <br />they forced the Croftons to plant as mitigation for their new project. He stated that he did <br />not believe the cost for the seven- foot tall fence as a mitigation should be the sole <br />responsibility of the Croftons but should be split between the two neighbors or be at the <br />applicants' cost. <br />Ms. Nerland advised that if the Commission is not requiring the fence as part of the <br />project's mitigation, an application for a seven-foot fence would need to be filed to which <br />both parties would agree as property lines fences need to be agreed upon by both <br />neighbors. <br />Commissioner Blank inquired about the purpose of Condition No.9 regarding home <br />occupation. <br />Ms. Mendez replied that the Croftons felt that the Diazes will use the addition for a home <br />occupation, and the condition reiterates that the Diazes will need to follow the Pleasanton <br />Municipal Code. <br />Commissioner Blank concurred that there should be no construction on Saturdays. <br />Commissioner Blank moved to deny the appeal, Case PAP-SO, thereby upholding <br />the Zoning Administrator's approval of P ADR-1271, subject to Exhibit B, <br />Conditions of Approval for PADR-1271, of the staff report as recommended by <br />staff, with the following modifications: (1) Modify Condition No.7 to not allow <br />constrnction on Saturdays; (2) Add a new condition requiring the applicant to <br />replace the three trees to be removed, the location of which shall be subject to the <br />review and approval of the Planning Director to provide the maximum screening <br />possible; (3) Add a new condition requiring the applicant to construct and pay for a <br />seven-foot tall fence for the length ofthe back yard, the design of which would be <br />subject to the review and approval ofthe Planning Director and the design and <br />installation approved by the Croftons. <br />Acting Chairperson Arkin seconded the motion. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br />AYES: Commissioners Arkin, Blank, Pearce, and Roberts. <br />NOES: None. <br />ABSTAIN: None. <br />RECUSED: None. <br />ABSENT: Commissioners Fox and Maas. <br />Resolution No. PC-2005-36 was entered and adopted as motioned. <br />Acting Chairperson Arkin informed the applicants and the appellants that they have <br />15 days to appeal the Commission's decision to the Council. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 27,2005 Page 3 of3 <br />