SR 06:245 - Laserfiche WebLink

Individual Meetinl!s and Apri110. 2006 Site Visit Ms. Decker and staff meet with the involved parties, on an individual basis, (please see Exhibit F for individual meeting notes), to listen to and discuss their concerns in a more informal manner. Staff would like to note that the Knights' submitted a written statement in lieu of a meeting with Ms. Decker, see Exhibit G, due to scheduling conflicts. During these meetings, the neighbors restated their concerns of the proposed second story addition and stated that there were no viable mitigation measures would not suffice for the approval of the proposed second-story addition other than restricting an addition to single-story or that perhaps the Knights should move else where. On Apri11 0, 2006, Ms. Decker conducted site visits to 790 East Angela, 798 East Angela, 779 Mirador Court, and the surrounding neighborhood. During these visits, Ms. Decker assessed potential impacts from the proposed addition and discussed with the Georgatos' and the applicants possible mitigation measures; 1) relocating the master bedroom windows to the east and west elevations; 2) adding trees to soften the appearance of the addition and mitigate privacy concerns; and 3) moving the stairway further to the east, which in turn would decrease the square footage and eliminate a small portion of the second story addition. As of April12, 2006, the applicants were the only ones supportive of the mitigation measures that had been discussed in the field, with the exception of moving the stairway. The applicants felt that the neighbors were dictating what an acceptable square-footage for a house should be and ifthey eliminated a portion of the addition the neighbors would still not be happy. The applicants stated that they were willing to look into reducing the square footage by reducing the size of the rooms on the second floor, however the rooms are small in size already. The applicants expressed that they are not asking for anything that has not already been approved by the City in their zoning district. Apri113, 2006 Zoninl! Administrator Hearinl! At the second public hearing on April 13, 2006, the Zoning Administrator discussed the outcome of the individual meetings and site visits (please see Exhibit H for the Zoning Administrator action report and Exhibit I for the meeting minutes). Those present at the hearing, Mr. Imperiale and the Georgatos', felt that the mitigation measures that had been discussed in the field and during meetings did not address their concerns and adding trees and moving and/or creating high windowsills would not suffice and no compromise could be reached. Staff would like to note that Tim Bennett could not attend the hearing and submitted an e-mail stating his concerns (please see Exhibit J). The Zoning Administrator found that the opposing neighbors would only be satisfied if the second story addition was eliminated. The Zoning Administrator supported staffs recommendation and approved Case PADR-1472, subject to the conditions shown in Exhibit B of the staff report dated "April13, 2006" for the following reasons; 1. The addition would adhere to all height, FAR, and setback regulations of the Pleasanton Municipal Code; 2. The height of the addition is not maximized. The maximum allowable height is 30-feet, as measured from the midpoint of the roof. Typically a single story structure is 25-feet to the ridge, yet the proposed project is 24-feet at the highest point. Therefore, it is less than a single-story structure and similar to that of recently approved one-story homes, thus minimizing the visual impacts; 3. The existing house is on a pad approximately 12-feet lower than the homes to the rear, thus minimizing the view of the addition; PAP-93, Appeal ofPADR-1472 Planning Commission Page 3 of 15