PC 102407 - Laserfiche WebLink

for the scope of work, which primarily included internal revisions and window replacements that were less than ten feet in height. She clarified that porches, stairs, and so forth may extend into the front yard setback up to 12 feet from the front property line. All of those conditions had been met as shown on the plans, allowing the applicants to apply for a building permit, which was a ministerial permit. She noted that the City was not required to notice neighbors every time a building permit was issued. She understood through the Building and Safety Division that the owners were current with their inspections and that it was treated as any other building permit for this site. She noted that staff reviewed many administrative design reviews as well as many other that require further examination. She noted that this site was straight-zoned as R-1-6,500 with no PUD that governed it. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Olson who monitored the number of people who lived in the house, Ms. Harryman replied that was monitored by the State. She noted that the City did not have many of these applications and had not received complaints after the fact. She stated that if more than six people were found to be living there, that would be a matter for Code Enforcement. Chairperson Fox noted that the Department of Social Services' Community Care Licensing Division (CCLD) monitored these facilities. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the City's options, Ms. Decker replied that the City had no authority to revoke the building permit or require a design review. Staff received the letter that the Planning Commission also received and was preparing a detailed response with respect to a lack of violations or a reason for Code Enforcement. Chairperson Fox requested that the residents receive a copy of the Health and Safety Code. Ms. Decker replied that staff would be happy to mail that information to the residents. Commissioner O'Connor requested a list of notifications that the residents would be able to receive in this case. Ms. Decker noted that this particulaz project did not trigger any noticing requirements. She continued that any project requiring a design review or planning entitlements such as a variance for setbacks would require noticing as per the Pleasanton Municipal Code. Commissioner Narum noted that she had visited the site and believed that if the current state of the property was considered to be acceptable, a discussion ought to take place to prevent that kind of appeazance for these residential buildings. She did not believe this building was visually acceptable and suggested that be the subject of an agendized discussion. She suggested discussing a possible modification of the Code to prevent a similaz building from being visually intrusive. Ms. Decker recommended that the remainder of this discussion take place under Matters Initiated by Commission Members. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 2007 Page 6 of 40