PC 092706 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Blank noted that the language on page 24 should be more global and modified to read as follows: "Work to enhance the appeazance of magazine and newspaper dispensers all over town near~us-stags." Commission O'Connor noted that Program 21.3 on page 27 should be modified to read as follows: "Discourage rxajer grading on slopes of 25 percent or greater." THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Peter MacDonald noted that balancing the needs of local people versus the needs of the community was a very good idea. He did not believe there was a simple answer, although he believed a list of things to consider would be a good addition. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Stern noted that staff would address these comments, prepaze a new draft, and email it to the Planning Commission prior to taking it to the City Council. No action was taken. b. PADR-1338/PV-131, Dustin and Robin Boyice Application for: (1) administrative design review approval to demolish approximately 470 squaze feet of the existing home and to construct an approximately 2,222-square-foot two-story addition, an approximately 833-squaze-foot non-habitable basement, and an approximately 950-squaze-foot detached garage; and (2) variances from the Municipal Code to: (a) increase the floor area ratio (FAR) from 40 percent to 45 percent; (b) reduce the right (south) side yazd setback from 5 feet to the existing 3.85 feet; and (c) increase the height of the gazage from 15 feet to 20.5 feet. The property is located at 4546 Second Street and is zoned R-1-6,500 (Single-Family Residential) District. Ms. Decker summarized the staff report and described the background, layout, and scope of this project. Chairperson Arkin inquired why this matter came to the Commission as an item to take action on rather than as a workshop. Ms. Decker replied that this was an administrative design review application, which is a staff-level review. The applicant was also requesting variances requiring a Zoning Administration hearing, and through this planning process, staff tried to bring the neighborhood together to gain a compromise among the neighbors. Staff had several conversations with the applicants to reduce the size and mass, which they did. The Zoning Administrator had elevated the project due to the continued controversy. A discussion of the roof height ensued. Ms. Decker clarified that the height was being measured to the midpoint of the roof in conformity with the Pleasanton Municipal Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 27, 2006 Page 5 of 17