PC 072606 - Laserfiche WebLink

r'^ Resolution No. PC-2006-38 was entered and adopted as motioned. Chairperson Arkin informed the public that anyone who wishes to appeal the decision has 15 days to do. He then requested staff to notify the appellant of the appeal period. d. PAP-97 Steve and Carol Stanton Auaellants (PADR-1542, Robert Sweeney Construction, for Jim Rboadesl Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of an application for administrative design review approval to construct an approximately 1,224-squaze-foot second-floor addition and an approximately 120-square-foot first-floor addition to the front of the existing residence located at 3227 Anastacia Court. Ms. Mendez presented the staff report, stating that the project was an appeal of a Zoning Administrator's approval of an approximately 1,224-squaze-foot second-floor addition and an approximately 120-squaze-foot first-floor addition to the front of the applicant's property located at 3227 Anastacia Court. She noted that the project meets all the required setbacks, height, and floor azea ratio, as well as the nine design criteria outlined in Chapter 18.20 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code. She stated that a Zoning Administrator hearing was held on June 22, 2006, at which the Zoning Administrator approved the project, which was subsequently appealed by Mr. and Mrs. Stanton, property owners to the reaz (east) of the subject site. Ms. Mendez noted that the appellants' concerns are addressed in the staff report and the staff memo that was previously e-mailed to the Commissioners and the Stantons. She added that the Stantons indicated that staff did not fully comprehend the second item on the memo regazding the discrepancy between the squaze footage of living area stated on first plan sheet and those stated at the bottom of pages A-2, A-3, and A-4. Ms. Mendez continued that Mr. Robert Sweeney, general contractor for the applicants, explained that the figures were a function of the computer program and that the calculation on page A-1 are accurate and consistent with County records. Ms. Mendez indicated that Mr. Sweeney was present to answer questions on the discrepancy. Ms. Mendez stated that the proposed project meets all the required site development standazds for the zoning district and that the design of the addition is attractive and fits well in the neighborhood of one- and two-story homes with varied architectural designs. She added that the Zoning Administrator had added conditions to the project that would mitigate the issues raised by the appellants and recommended that the Commission deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Zoning Administrator's decision approving the project. Commissioner Fox inquired if the appellants own the property but do not live there. Ms. Mendez said yes. She stated that the house is being rented out. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 26, 2006 Page 14 of 24