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