SR 06:247 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT EXHIBIT '.'1 n., lU , PADR-1338IPV-131. Dustin and Robin Bovce Application for: (1) administrative design review approval to demolish approximately 470 square feet of the existing home and to construct an approximately 2,222-square-foot two-story addition, an approximately 833-square-foot non-habitable basement, and an approximately 950-square-foot detached garage; and (2) variances from the Municipal Code to: (a) increase the floor area ratio (FAR) from 40 percent to 45 percent; (b) reduce the right (south) side yard setback from 5 feet to the existing 3.85 feet; and (c) increase the height of the garage from 15 feet to 20.5 feet. The property is located at 4546 Second Street and is zoned R-1-6,500 (Single-Family Residential) District. Ms, Decker summarized the staff report and described the background, layout, and scope of this project Chairperson Arkin inquired why this matter came to the Commission as an item to take action on rather than as a workshop, Ms, Decker replied that this was an administrative design review application, which is a staff-level review, The applicant was also requesting variances requiring a Zoning Administration hearing, and through this planning process, staff tried to bring the neighborhood together to gain a compromise among the neighbors, Staff had several conversations with the applicants to reduce the size and mass, which they did, The Zoning Administrator had elevated the project due to the continued controversy, A discussion of the roof height ensued, Ms, Decker clarified that the height was being measured to the midpoint of the roof in conformity with the Pleasanton Municipal Code, In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding the petitions from the neighbors in opposition, Ms, Decker replied that all the petitions were based on the previous plan submitted, Concerns were related to the basement habitable area, FAR, and the size of the garage, Staff calculated the FAR based on the Pleasanton Municipal Code, and basements and attic areas are not a part of the FAR, In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Pearce regarding whether the applicants had been asked to reduce the FAR during the Zoning Administrator hearing, Ms. Decker replied that they had, The applicants conveyed to Planning staff that there was an interest in maximizing the square footage for the development and that removing a foot from the rear of the proposed addition would not do anything to help the bulk or massing, Staff did not feel that would change the character significantly and agreed that the 45-percent FAR was supportable, She noted that staff did not typically support FAR variances; however, in the Downtown area, a number of lots have differing sizes and depths. Staff considered the goal to maintain vibrancy in the Downtown area and to support the residents who wish to invest in their property through the ability to expand their homes reflecting the current lifestyle, Staff believed this investment creates and maintains stability and the vibrancy of the Downtown area, In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Olson regarding whether this property had been storypoled, Ms, Decker replied that she did not believe it was, although there had been a request to do so early in the process, She added that the applicants had done two photomontages that were in the staff report, EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, September 27, 2006 Page I of8