CCMIN101706 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Iserson referred the Council to page 8 of 24 of the conditions, noting condition 24 states "at the tentative map stage, staff shall discuss the means to permanently preserve the open space area, and shall make a recommendation to the Planning Commission". Council asked that staff provide a copy of the recommendations to the Planning Commission regarding the Tentative Map. Staff explained the design guidelines as they relate to house colors indicating they address avoiding bright colors and encourage keeping with the colors established in the neighborhood. Mr. Fialho noted the motion could be amended to include that the colors be consistent with the existing environment in the Foothill area. That amendment was agreed to be included in the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Brozosky, McGovern, Sullivan, Thorne, Mayor Hosterman Noes: None Absent: None 6c. Public Hearing: PAP-101 (PADR-1338/PV-131), Dustin and Robin Boyce, consideration of an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying (1) administrative design review to demolish approximately 470 square feet of the existing home and to construct an approximately 2,222-square-foot two-story addition, an approximately 833-square-foot non-habitable basement, and a 950 sq. ft. detached garage; and (2) variances of Municipal Code to (a) increase the floor area ratio (FAR) from 40 percent to 45 percent; (b) reduce the right (south) side yard setback from 5 feet to the existing 3.85 feet; and (c) increase the height of the garage from 15 feet to 20.5 feet. The property is located at 4546 Second Street (SR 06:247) Mr. Iserson presented the staff report, outlined the proposal details and indicated at issue is whether the administrative design review and variance approval of Mr. Boyce's proposed basement, two-story addition to his existing residence, and detached garage in the rear yard area. The Planning Commission denied the application on a 4-1 vote due to concern over making the required findings for an over-height accessory structure (garage) and an increase in the FAR. The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission decision. Staff believes that the proposed project is well designed, meets the intent of the Downtown Specific Plan and Design Guidelines, and will blend in well with the neighborhood and recommended Council uphold the appeal subject to the following: 1. Find that the project is consistent with the General Plan, the Downtown Specific Plan, and the Downtown Design Guidelines; 2. Make the required findings as listed on pages 11-13 of the Planning Commission staff report for the requested variances to the Pleasanton Municipal Code; and 3. Adopt the draft resolution upholding the appeal, thereby approving Cases PADR- 1338 and PV-131, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. City Council Minutes 9 October 17, 2006