RES 06063 - Laserfiche WebLink

RESOLUTION NO. 06-063 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION OF PETER SHUTTS, ON BEHALF OF FINLAY BOAG, FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE PLEASANTON MUNICIPAL CODE AND FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL, AS FILED UNDER CASE PV-1531PADR-1536 WHEREAS, Peter Shutts, on behalf of Finlay 8oag, has applied for a variance from the Pleasanton Municipal Code and for administrative design review approval to construct additions to the existing dwelling at 4558 Second Street consisting of: (1) one-story additions totaling approximately 291 square feet on the front, north side, and rear of the house; (2) two-story additions totaling approximately 294 square feet on the southern side and rear of the house; (3) a porte-cochere and second.floor balcony on the southern side of the house; and (4) a covered front porch; and WHEREAS, zoning for the property is R-1-6,500 (Single-Family Residential) District; and WHEREAS, within the time specified by the Pleasanton Municipal Code, Dustin Boyce submitted an appeal (Case PAP-94) of the Zoning Administrator's decision to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, at its meeting of July 26, 2006, the Planning Commission canceled its August 9, 2006 meeting, the date scheduled for the public hearing for Case PAP-94, and because the application was an appeal subject to time limits, the Zoning Administrator's original decision was deemed upheld; and WHEREAS, within the time specified by the Pleasanton Municipal Code, the appellants submitted an appeal (Case PAP-99) of the Zoning Administrator's decision to the City Council; and WHEREAS, at its meeting of September 19, 2006, the City Council received a report from the Director of Planning and Community Development, together with a copy of the staff report to the Zoning Administrator, regarding this matter; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on September 19, 2006, at which time the appellants and other members of the public were offered an opportunity to present evidence regarding this appeal; and WHEREAS, actions of this nature are categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony and review of the materials presented, the City Council determined that the proposed design of the additions is appropriate and compatible with the existing and surrounding homes; and WHEREAS, the City Council made the following findings: