Laserfiche WebLink
some teeth behind the fact that the construction must be completed within eight months. He <br />would change the language to strike the word "may" and replace it with "will." <br />Commissioner Blank moved to deny the appeal, PAP-108, and to uphold the Zoning <br />Administrator's approval of Case PADR-1698, subject to the conditions of approval listed <br />in Exhibit B, with the following modifications: <br />1. Modify Condition No. 3 to read as follows: "No design review approval or building <br />permits shall be extended. Should the design review approval or building permit <br />lapse, the additions shall be removed/demolished by the owner, or a new design <br />review application will be required to be submitted to the City. If the applicant fails <br />to comply with the above, staff shall initiate the nuisance abatement process per <br />Section 9.28 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code." <br />2. Modify Condition No. 4 to include completion of all flat work within six months <br />from the date of building permit issuance. <br />3. Modify Condition No. 5 to add that the criteria for allowing earlier "start times" for <br />specific construction activities shall include construction noise not affecting nearby <br />residents. <br />Chairperson Fox proposed an amendment whereby a 90-day progress report would be <br />issued. <br />Commissioner Blank noted that he would not need to see such a report and was only <br />concerned about the eight-month deadline. <br />Commissioner Pearce seconded the motion. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br />AYES: Commissioners Blank, O'Connor, Olson, and Pearce. <br />NOES: Commissioner Fox. <br />ABSTAIN: None. <br />RECUSED: None. <br />ABSENT: Commissioner Narum. <br />Resolution No. PC-2007-40, denying Case PAP-108, thereby upholding the Zoning <br />Administrator's approval of Case PADR-1698, was entered and adopted as motioned. <br />At this point, the appellant indicated that he had a question of the Commission. <br />Commissioner Blank moved to reopen the public hearing for the purpose of answering the <br />appellant's question, but not for the purpose of reconsidering the item. <br />Commissioner Olson seconded the motion. <br />EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 26, 2007 Page 11 of 12 <br />