My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 022807
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
PC 022807
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 3:29:13 PM
Creation date
8/17/2007 10:02:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/28/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Olson concurred and noted that a variance had already been granted from five feet <br />to three feet and that reducing the setback to zero would be treading on a slippery slope. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce agreed and indicated that she is not inclined to grant a special privilege <br />based on the reason that the structure is already built. She added that she felt if this request for <br />the variance came before the structure were built, the Commission would not grant a variance. <br />She stated that she is not inclined to support a zero setback because it is detrimental to the next- <br />door neighbors and impacts their quality of life, as evidenced by their increasing the height of the <br />fence. <br /> <br />Commissioner O’Connor agreed with the other Commissioners and stated that while they would <br />only have a six-foot wide covered structure with a five-foot setback on an 11-foot side yard, he <br />considered the Zoning Administrator’s decision of a three-foot setback with a two-foot eaves <br />overhang already generous. He noted that he found the size and the height of the structure to be <br />too massive for a covered patio. He added that although variances may have been granted in the <br />1980’s, he did not think proliferating that is the right thing to do. <br /> <br />With respect to the issue of gutters, Chairperson Fox noted that torrential rains could still <br />overflow into the neighbors’ property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Narum agreed with the Commissioners and suggested that the structure be painted <br />to match the house color to reduce its overbearing and obtrusive appearance. She indicated that <br />if the Commission decided to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision, she would like to <br />leave the decision of the gutter to the applicant. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank moved to deny the appeal, Case PAP-103, and uphold the Zoning <br />Administrator’s decision for PV-140, with the additional condition that the structure be <br />painted in a manner acceptable to the Zoning Administrator. <br />Commissioner Narum seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce noted that while painting may make the structure look prettier, it does not <br />have anything to do with public health and safety, special circumstances, or depriving the <br />property of privileges and, therefore, she cannot support the motion. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank agreed to amend the motion by removing the additional condition. <br />Commissioner Narum accepted the amendment. <br /> <br />Chairperson Fox clarified that the applicant may appeal the Commission’s decision to the City <br />Council. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 28, 2007 Page 10 of 13 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.