PC 032906 - Laserfiche WebLink

measures to be included as conditions of approval. With regazd to mitigation measures, ~ they would like the existing olive tree on the applicants' property to be removed and would like three new trees planted with the addition: one peaz tree and two magnolia alta trees. Mike Fulford, the City's landscape architect, and the Fire Marshall have reviewed the proposed trees and locations and found them to be acceptable. The City's landscape azchitect stated that the proposed walkway in the azea by the addition would need to be modified or eliminated to accommodate the new trees. The Zoning Administrator hearing for this item was held in February 2006, and staff supported the application. The Zoning Administrator made the findings listed in the staff report and approved the application as proposed by the applicants. Ms. Giffin noted that the project was straight-zoned and not in a Planned Unit Development. There was no view easement on the property, and the addition did not critically impact the sky. In addition, the project adheres to all site development standazds, and the applicants were not asking for anything extraordinary. The applicants aze willing to provide obscured glass in the bathroom windows to mitigate privacy impacts, and the second floor setback would be approximately 20 to 25 feet from the side property line, which is I S to 25 feet more than what is required by the Pleasanton Municipal Code. The applicants have indicated that their azchitect reviewed the possibility of locating the addition on the other side of the lot, and the architect has determined that the relocation would not work well with the proposed floor plan. In addition to the Janisens, four neighbors have commented on the project: three in support of the addition, and one in ~-. opposition. The latter stated that she has aone-story house and believes that the proposed addition as well as other two-story additions aze changing the chazacter of the neighborhood. Ms. Giffin displayed photographs of the proposed project and of the neighborhood. Staff looked at other homes on the court, and displayed two houses in the neighborhood with similaz two-story reaz-yard additions. The neighbors in the one-story homes adjacent to these additions called staff in support of the proposed addition. At the Zoning Administrator hearing, staff had originally recommended that the olive tree be removed to open up the Janisens' view of the sky and that an additional tree be provided to screen the stucco wall. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission make the findings listed in the staff report, modify Condition No. 3 of Exhibit B to state that the bathroom windows shall have obscured glass as agreed to by the applicants. Staff recommended that the Commission deny PAP-91 and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval. In response to an inquiry by Commission Peazce regarding the relative size difference of the old versus the new windows, Ms. Giffin replied that the window being replaced would be the same size, and the new window would be smaller. Commissioner Roberts disclosed that she spoke with Ms. Sommer on the phone. ~~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mazch 29, 2006 Page 3 of 25