Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(217 square feet of new space for the additional bedroom and laundry area) and it is supportable <br />by staff. These specifics were clarified to Mrs. Birtcil during a phone conversation with staff <br />prior to her submitting the attached letter. Staff also invited Mrs. Birtcil to view the proposed <br />plans, but she declined the invitation as she lives in Walnut Creek and is categorically opposed <br />to any changes in the neighborhood despite the proposed design. <br /> <br />To enable staff to respond to the references made to the CC&Rs, the applicant supplied staff <br />with a copy of the CC&Rs. Although the City does not enforce CC&Rs, Article 3.4 addresses <br />requests for additions, exterior modifications to the existing homes and landscaping. In addition <br />to affording homeowners the ability to process such requests, it further states that such requests <br />are subject to review and approval by the City of Pleasant on and the appointed HOA <br />Committee, if such a committee exists. The HOA for this development appears to have become <br />inactive. Therefore, the City of Pleasant on processed this request based on the development <br />plan and the PUD conditions of approval without a design review & approval letter from an <br />HOA. <br /> <br />As for the concerns regarding density; density is based on the number of dwelling units <br />constructed on a piece of land. This application would add additional space to an existing <br />dwelling, therefore it does not increase the approved density of this development. This <br />development was constructed with a high-density residential zoning, which in some areas of the <br />City allowed for zero lot line development. Staff feels that this proposal is not encroaching any <br />further then the established garage wall line and that the addition will not be out of character for <br />the neighborhood. This request is similar to other requests reviewed and approved by the City <br />to allow additions to maintain the existing wall setback albeit often times requiring entitlement <br />to do so. <br /> <br />Staff cannot speculate how development will impact property values, if at all. The planning <br />process is intended to review proposals based on the presentation and the compatibility of the <br />proposal. The process does not evaluate projects based on an economic impact, whether <br />positive or negative. <br /> <br />VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT <br /> <br />The project is categorically exempt from Section l530l(a) of the California Environmental <br />Quality Act (CEQA). Thus, no environmental report is accompanied this staff report. <br /> <br />VII. CONCLUSION <br /> <br />In the Northway Downs PUD area, the City has allowed additions to the existing homes. This <br />addition is only different in that it is requesting the addition be allowed to have a five-foot <br /> <br />Case PUD-77-08-1M/PADR-1490 Planning Commission <br />Page - 6 - <br />