10 - Laserfiche WebLink

second floor addition on the first floor, but did not find this alternative feasible since it would reduce the outdoor play area that exists near the eastern and southern property lines, would require eliminating an existing bathroom on the first floor in order to construct a hallway, and would eliminate a bedroom on the proposed second floor. Figure 6 on page 10 provides visual representation of where a first floor addition may be located. The contents of this diagram are discussed further in this report under section labeled "First Floor Addition." Mr. Persin also suggested the alternative of constructing an addition to the rear of the existing first floor, near where the deck is currently located. However, a single -story addition where the deck is currently located would require a variance since it would not meet the required rear yard setback. It would also result in an unusual internal layout with the addition accessed from the existing family room. The mediation meetings held on October 6th and November 22 have resulted in further discussion between the applicants and the concerned neighbors, but have not resulted in a solution that is acceptable to all parties. Therefore, the appeal is before the City Council for a decision. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING The Planning Commission hearing on August 25, 2010, was in response to an appeal filed by three adjacent property owners. The public comments expressed at the hearing were consistent with the comments provided at the Zoning Administrator hearing. In summary, the topics of concern consist of: reduced privacy, reduced sunlight, views of the two -story home, and inconsistency with the neighborhood. The Planning Commission denied the appeal filed by three of the adjacent property owners with a 3 -2 vote, thereby upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval of the proposed project, subject to the conditions of the approval, with the following amendment: that the hours of construction be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday — Friday (instead of the same hours on Monday — Saturday). The Planning Commission's decision was primarily based on the following: (1) the project meets the requirements of the Pleasanton Municipal Code and the applicant is not requesting any variances; (2) the applicant has modified windows and agreed to plant landscape screening along the rear property line in efforts to address concerns regarding privacy impacts of the proposal and the view of the project from their rear yards; and (3) the proposal is architecturally articulated with the use of varied rooflines and building walls. Additionally, during the public comment process and the deliberation by the members of the Planning Commission, several additional topics were discussed. These are described and discussed in more detail below. The staff report, approved minutes for the August 25, 2010, Planning Commission hearing, and correspondence distributed Page 4 of 15