PC 032906 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Blank advised that the first sentence of the first pazagraph under Item 6.c. (~' on page 7 should be modified to read as follows: "Commissioner Blank disclosed that he was unaware until the afternoon of the Planning Commission meeting bye that the applicant was one of his coworkers." The minutes were approved as corrected. 3. MEETING OPEN FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ANY ITEM WHICH IS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA. There were none. 4. REVISIONS AND OMISSIONS TO THE AGENDA Ms. Decker requested that Item 6.c., PAP-91, James and Tami Janisen, Appellants ((PADR-1465, David Chov and Wendv Sommer), be considered first, ahead of the General Plan. The rest of the items would be considered in the order shown on the agenda. She noted that Item 6.e.. PDR-520/PCUP-162, Citv of Pleasanton, would be continued to April 26, 2006, and Item 6.g., PUD-99-14, Kazuo Hatsushi, would be continued to April 12, 2006. 5. MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION ~ There were none. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS c. PAP-91. James and Tami Janisen, Appellants (PADR-1465. David Chov and Wendv Sommer) Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of an application for administrative design review to construct an approximately 395-squaze-foot first-floor addition and an approximately 160-square-foot second-floor addition to the rear and side of the existing residence located at 3431 Windsor Court. Zoning for the property is R-1-6,500 (Single-Family Residential) District. Chairperson Arkin disclosed that he visited both the homeowners and the appellants. Commissioner Roberts disclosed that she visited the neighborhood several times. Ms. Decker introduced Robin Giffin, Associate Planner, who presented the staff report. Ms. Giffin detailed the background and scope of this item, and described the appellants' concerns about feeling walled-in by the new addition. The appellants would like the addition to be moved to the other side of the applicants' property; however, if the relocation is not going to be supported, then they would like their proposed mitigation !~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 29, 2006 Page 2 of 25