PC 092607 - Laserfiche WebLink

the neighbors and noted that with respect to unpermitted work, she was inclined neither to be overly lenient with projects that would not have been approved in the first place nor to be overly punitive. She noted that all the parties wanted to see the project completed and supported expediting that completion. She noted that the project was within the FAR and height limit and that the Planning Commission would have been inclined to approve it. Commissioner Olson noted that the argument that the Code has been violated was compelling in his view, but he was not prepared to ask the property owner to tear out the existing work. He was concerned that Condition No. 6 in the original Exhibit B has been stricken from the current Exhibit B. In deference to the neighbors, he believed a condition should be included that put some teeth behind the fact that the construction must be completed within eight months. He would change the language to strike the word “may” and replace it with “will.” Commissioner Blank moved to deny the appeal, PAP-108, and to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval of Case PADR-1698, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B, with the following modifications: 1.Modify Condition No. 3 to read as follows: “No design review approval or building permits shall be extended. Should the design review approval or building permit lapse, the additions shall be removed/demolished by the owner, or a new design review application will be required to be submitted to the City. If the applicant fails to comply with the above, staff shall initiate the nuisance abatement process per Section 9.28 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code.” 2.Modify Condition No. 4 to include completion of all flat work within six months from the date of building permit issuance. 3.Modify Condition No. 5 to add that the criteria for allowing earlier “start times” for specific construction activities shall include construction noise not affecting nearby residents. Chairperson Fox proposed an amendment whereby a 90-day progress report would be issued. Commissioner Blank noted that he would not need to see such a report and was only concerned about the eight-month deadline. Commissioner Pearce seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Blank, O’Connor, Olson, and Pearce. NOES: Commissioner Fox. ABSTAIN: None. RECUSED: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Narum. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 26, 2007 Page 15 of 20