Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DRAFT <br /> <br />PAP-97. Steve and Carol Stanton. Appellants (PADR-1542. Robert Sweenev Construction, <br />for Jim Rhoades) <br />Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of an application for administrative design <br />review approval to construct an approximately 1,224-square-foot second-floor addition and <br />an approximately 120-square-foot first-floor addition to the front of the existing residence <br />located at 3227 Anastacia Court. <br /> <br />Ms, Mendez presented the staff report, stating that the project was an appeal of a Zoning <br />Administrator's approval of an approximately 1,224-square-foot second-floor addition and an <br />approximately 120-square-foot first-floor addition to the front of the applicant's property located <br />at 3227 Anastacia Court. She noted that the project meets all the required setbacks, height, and <br />floor area ratio, as well as the nine design criteria outlined in Chapter 18,20 of the Pleasanton <br />Municipal Code. She stated that a Zoning Administrator hearing was held on June 22, 2006, at <br />which the Zoning Administrator approved the project, which was subsequently appealed by <br />Mr. and Mrs, Stanton, property owners to the rear (east) of the subject site, <br /> <br />Ms, Mendez noted that the appellants' concerns are addressed in the staff report and the staff <br />memo that was previously e-mailed to the Commissioners and the Stantons. She added that the <br />Stantons indicated that staff did not fully comprehend the second item on the memo regarding <br />the discrepancy between the square footage of living area stated on first plan sheet and those <br />stated at the bottom of pages A-2, A-3, and A-4. Ms, Mendez continued that Mr. Robert <br />Sweeney, general contractor for the applicants, explained that the figures were a function of the <br />computer program and that the calculation on page A-I are accurate and consistent with County <br />records. Ms, Mendez indicated that Mr. Sweeney was present to answer questions on the <br />discrepancy. <br /> <br />Ms, Mendez stated that the proposed project meets all the required site development standards <br />for the zoning district and that the design of the addition is attractive and fits well in the <br />neighborhood of one- and two-story homes with varied architectural designs, She added that the <br />Zoning Administrator had added conditions to the project that would mitigate the issues raised <br />by the appellants and recommended that the Commission deny the appeal, thereby upholding the <br />Zoning Administrator's decision approving the project. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fox inquired if the appellants own the property but do not live there, Ms. Mendez <br />said yes, She stated that the house is being rented out. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fox further inquired if the renters had weighed in on the project. Ms, Mendez <br />replied that the renter first notified the appellants and was concerned about the project and the <br />effects of noise and dust, <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> <br />Steve and Carol Stanton, 6882 Via Quito, appellants, are the owners of the home at 3116 Joanne <br />Circle located directly behind the proposed project. Mr. Stanton presented overhead pictures of <br />their house, identifying the bedroom, the kitchen, dining room, and family room, which are <br />located directly across the proposed two-story additions with large windows and the large <br /> <br />DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 26, 2006 <br /> <br />Page 1 of 4 <br />