CCMIN031803 - Laserfiche WebLink

Item 6d PAP-46~ (PADR-669~ John Duggan) Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of an administrative design review application to construct additions to the existing dwelling at 3573 Kings Canyon Court consisting of: 1) an approximately 33-sq. ft. single-story addition on the north side of the existing garage~ 2) an approximately 382-sq. ft. single-story addition on the west (front), east (rearh and north (side) elevations~ and 3) an approximately 669-sq.ft. second-story addition above the existing garage and family room. Zoning for the properw is R-1-6~500 (single-family Residential~ 6~500 sq. ft. minimum lot). (SR 03:066) Brian Swirl presented the staff report. Mr. Brozosky noted there were several items on the house that were not up to Code and asked if the house was allowed to be occupied? He especially noted the front porch needed to be completed. Mr. Swift said the house can be occupied. He agreed the porch needs work and one of the proposals is to add on to the porch. Mr. Duggan did not want to build the porch back to the original condition and then have to tear it off to do the new porch. Mr. Brozosky commented that Mr. Duggan had started work on several projects without obtaining the required building permits. He asked if there were fines for doing that? Mr. Swirl said when work is done without a permit, the owner eventually has to get a permit for the work and the Building Department is then able to charge a higher permit fee of up to 50% more than normal. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, Suite 210, represented Mr. Duggan. He said Mr. Duggan is a divorced father who wants to have space for his eight year old son to live with him and for his college aged children to stay with him at certain times of the year. The proposed home addition meets all the requirements of the R-1 District, including the maximum floor area ration of 48%. The proposed home is 38% FAR. The basis for the Planning Commission denial was that the proposed home would be too big for the neighborhood and Mr. MacDonald did not believe there was any legal basis for that finding. The design of the home is not an issue. The Planning staffrecommends the design to be approved and stated it was a sensitive design for this lot and the surroundings. The idea of people in the Valley Trails neighborhood being unworthy of living in 2500 sq. ft. houses is unfair. Denial of the home addition in Valley Trails would set a terrible planning precedent for that neighborhood. It is primarily through home additions that older neighborhoods gradually upgrade. It would also reduce the resale value of homes because many young families buy smaller homes and later add rooms when they can afford to. Mr. MacDonald believed realtors would have to disclose to young families that the City denied an application for an addition as being out of character with the neighborhood, even when the proposed addition met the floor area ration set forth in the zoning district. The City has approved home additions all over Pleasanton with 38% FAR or greater. Part of the theory of the Pleasanton City Council 28 03/18/03 Minutes