SR 06:247 - Laserfiche WebLink

CONCLUSION Staff notes that in order to support the revitalization of the Downtown District, the City has expressed a desire to increase both the height of accessory structures and the FAR within the District's residential areas. The increased standards would allow primary and accessory structures to be built on what are traditionally smaller lots that both meet the consumer preferences of contemporary families as well as retain the character of the Downtown Community. Although not yet codified in the Pleasanton Municipal Code, the City has viewed such variance requests within the Downtown Revitalization District with more leniency than elsewhere in the City. Such variance requests are not given 'by right' but evaluated on a case-by-case basis taking into account such factors as the shape and size of the lot, as well as the design, massing and siting of proposed structures. When supportable conditions are met, staff has been able to make the findings to moderately increase the FAR and the height of accessory structures. For Case Number PADR-1338!PV-131, staff is able to make the findings supporting a variance to extend a non-conforming side yard setback. Staff is unable to make the re- quired findings to support either the 14-foot increase in the height of a detached acces- sory structure, or an increase in the floor area ratio of the subject lot to 60.5%. Staff believes an increase in the height of an accessory structure on the subject lot may be supportable if the design, massing and siting of all proposed structures are compatible with the character of the Downtown Community and have reduced impacts to neighbor- ing properties. To arrive at a development plan supportable by staff, the applicant will be required to submit revised plans reducing the height of the accessory structure, maintain- ing the required side yard separation, and reducing the FAR over what is currently pro- posed. Staff believes the extent of the revisions outlined above will sufficiently alter the project's scope to render it a new project. Staffs opinion is buttressed by the number of neighboring residents who have expressed concerns regarding this project, and who should, through transparency of process, be able to view and assess final project plans before Planning Department approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator deny Case No. PADR-1338!PV-131. Staff also recommends that if the Zoning Administrator's decision is appealed that con- cerned parties enter into discussion to find a workable solution before the item is sched- uled for the Planning Commission. Staff Planner: Leslie Mendez, (925) 931-5611, lmendez@cipleasanton.ca.us Case No. PV-13l1PADR./338 Page 6 0[6 September 15, 2005