My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 06:210
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2006
>
SR 06:210
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/6/2007 11:06:55 AM
Creation date
9/1/2006 2:03:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
9/5/2006
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 06:210
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
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
<br />DRAFT <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner Olson's inquiring regarding whether the balcony was planned to be <br />off of the master bedroom, Ms, Mendez said that it was, <br /> <br />Chairperson Arkin moved to deny Case PAP-97, thereby upholding the Zoning <br />Administrator's approval of Case PADR-1542, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed <br />in Exhibit B of the staff report, as recommended by staff. <br />Commissioner Olson seconded the motion. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fox proposed an amendment that the balcony be replaced by a standard window, <br /> <br />Chairperson Arkin stated that the balcony is very small and appears to be more of an <br />architectural piece than anything else. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson noted that the Fire Department would look positively at the balcony <br />because it would be easier to get out of the house, particularly since it would be off of the master <br />bedroom where people sleep. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce stated that the applicants have mitigated the privacy issues as well as they <br />could be. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank noted that there are no view easements or documentation of any <br />entitlements and added that there would be more sensitivity to privacy issues if there were a view <br />easement because there would be an expectation of privacy. <br /> <br />Chairperson Arkin stated that the Commission is generally more concerned with the view in <br />cases where there is actually a view of the ridge. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSTAIN: <br />RECUSED: <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Commissioners Arkin, Blank, Olson, and Pearson, <br />Commissioner Fox. <br />None. <br />None. <br />None, <br /> <br />Resolution No, PC-2006-39 was entered and adopted as motioned. <br /> <br />Chairperson Arkin informed the appellants that they had 15 days to appeal the decision to the <br />City Council. <br /> <br />DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 26, 2006 <br /> <br />Page 4 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.