|
<br />DRAFT
<br />
<br />Conunissioners Fox, Pearce, Olson, and O'Connor, and Arkin disclosed that they had met with
<br />the applicants and visited the site,
<br />
<br />Commissioner Blank disclosed that he drove by the property, but was unable to coordinate with
<br />the applicant to visit the site.
<br />
<br />Robin Boyce, 4546 Second Street, applicant, noted that she and her husband also worked in
<br />Pleasanton and that they had hoped to add to their house to accommodate their growing family,
<br />They would like to have a decent, livable home that conformed to the standard of their
<br />neighborhood and added that it had not been updated, She emphasized that they did not want a
<br />monster home, had met with their neighbors, and had made modifications to their original plans,
<br />
<br />Dustin Boyce, 4546 Second Street, applicant, displayed a presentation on the overhead screen
<br />describing their proposed addition and summarized the background of this application, He noted
<br />that they intended to make this their permanent home and that they had submitted four different
<br />plans to improve their substandard lot with neighborhood support. He noted that their three
<br />minor variances were supported by staff: the garage height, the south sideyard setback, and the
<br />floor area ratio, He believed the attic and the garage did not count in the FAR because they did
<br />not have utilities and were not intended to be habitable area; he always intended to use those
<br />areas for storage, He noted that they added dormer roof and lowered the height of the garage
<br />roof in response to neighbors' objections, He requested the Commission's approval for this
<br />application, He was concerned that if they had to reduce th,: FAR, they would have to remove
<br />more than five feet from the back of the two-story element, which would break up the design of
<br />the rooms on the back of the house, He noted that would have no impact on the view of their
<br />home from Second Street.
<br />
<br />Mr. Boyce noted that their neighbors, the Boags, who objected to the 45-percent FAR, just built
<br />a home addition that was seven feet from the property line, was three feet above his own
<br />proposed second-story addition, and whose height was 37 feet above his back yard, The Boags
<br />had requested and were granted a variance on that side yard setback. Mr. Boyce noted that he
<br />had removed a second-floor master bedroom popout on the side bordering Ms, Lutman's
<br />property at her request to protect her privacy, He noted that some neighbors objected to the
<br />original design of the second-story element, which was set back 45 feet from the curb, beyond
<br />the historic one-story element. When the second-story element is completed, it will be
<br />approximate three feet below the height of the Boags' addition, He noted that the original
<br />second-story addition met the height requirements of the zoning district; however, in an effort to
<br />gain their neighbors' support, they changed to a dormers to the roof on the second-story element
<br />and lowered the roof by four more feet, which cost them eight windows on the second floor.
<br />
<br />Mr. Boyce was concerned that these changes did not garner the support of all their neighbors,
<br />although some of the neighbors and Planning staff did support them, They provided an arborist's
<br />report from one of the City-approved arborists, but the report was not available when the staff
<br />report was published; he distributed that at this meeting, and noted that the report concluded that
<br />all of the trees will probably survive, He believed that the impact of one party's heritage trees
<br />upon a neighbor's property was subject to the rule of reason, He noted that they sincerely tried
<br />
<br />EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, September 27, 2006
<br />
<br />Page 2 of8
<br />
|