SR 06:247 - Laserfiche WebLink

6. Exhibit E, Petition Submitted to the Planning Department, dated "Received June 7, 2006" 7. Exhibit F, Updated Responses from Petition Signers to Boyce Project 8. Exhibit G, Letter to Neighborhood from Applicant with Attached Elevations, dated September 14,2006 9. Exhibit H, Other Public Comment Received by Phone and E-Mail BACKGROUND On July 17,2005 Dustin Boyce submitted an application for administrative design review approval to demolish approximately 470 square feet of an existing home and construct an approximately 833-square-foot, non-habitable basement; a 2,313 square-foot two-story addition at the rear of the existing home; and an approximately 1,900-square-foot two- story detached accessory structure in the rear yard area. The proposal required several variances from the Pleasanton Municipal Code: a variance to allow an increase in the floor area ratio from 40% to 60.5%; a variance to allow a re- duction in the required side yard setback from 5 feet to the existing 3.85 feet; a variance to reduce the side yard separation from 17 to 13 feet; and a variance to increase the height of the garage (accessory structure) from 15 feet to 29 feet. The FAR was high because the calculation included the full-sized attic area of the garage. Although attics are not typically calculated in the floor area ratio, the design as originally submitted had wall heights allowing a person to stand in the attic area. This led staff to believe the garage at- tic was more like a second story and thus counted its square-footage towards the FAR. The project was noticed and staff received various comments from the applicant's neighbors. On September 9, 2005, staff met with the applicant's neighbors to discuss their specific concerns to the project. On September 15, 2005, the Zoning Administrator heard Case Number PADR-1338!PV-131. The testimony provided by the six neighbors indicated there was strong opposition to the project. Concern was expressed related to: . Excessive square-footage and bulk on a small lot; Disbelief that the basement and second story of the garage would be used only for storage; . . The design appeared to have a 2-story garage and a 3-story house due to the pitch of the roofs and because there were windows in dormers in the attic area; . The garage was too large and a 3-car garage did not fit within the character of the neighborhood; . An ongoing lawsuit between the applicant and his neighbor regarding access to the rear of the applicant's property; Item 6.b. PADR-1338/PV-131 Page 2 of 14 September 27, 2006