11 - Laserfiche WebLink

6. Relationship of exterior lighting to its surroundings and to the building and adjoining landscape; 7. Architectural style, as a function of its quality of design and relationship to its surroundings; the relationship of building components to one another/the building's colors and materials; and the design attention given to mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings; 8. Integration of signs as part of the architectural concept; and 9. Architectural concept of miscellaneous structures, street furniture, public art in relationship to the site and landscape. (PMC, section 18.20.030.); and WHEREAS, after receiving a staff presentation and public testimony, the Zoning Administrator approved the Project as proposed, subject to conditions of approval at a hearing on May 25, 2017; and WHEREAS, within the time specified by the Pleasanton Municipal Code, David and Sue Robles submitted an appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator claiming that the Conditions of Approval would require the second-story floor plan to be substantially reconfigured and prevent them from moving forward with a project that meets their needs; and WHEREAS, at its July 12, 2017 meeting, after receiving a staff presentation and public testimony, the Planning Commission continued the item and directed the application to work with staff to modify the design of the proposed addition. Specifically, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to undertake the following design modifications: (1) Reduce the overall massing/area of the second-floor addition, possibly by reducing the number of bedrooms; (2) Eliminate any new second-floor windows on the north elevation; and (3) Improve architectural detailing on the front facade of the addition; and WHEREAS, at its August 23, 2017 meeting, after receiving a staff presentation and public testimony, the Planning Commission denied the Project as proposed, finding that: (1) the overall massing/area of the second-floor addition was too large and was not compatible to other homes in the neighborhood; and (2) the front façade of the addition was not aesthetically pleasing; and WHEREAS, within the time specified by the Pleasanton Municipal Code, David and Sue Robles submitted an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of October 3, 2017, the City Council received a report from the Director of Community Development, together with a copy of the staff reports to the Planning Commission; and