PC 2006-30 - Laserfiche WebLink

PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF PLEASANTON ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. PC-2006-30 RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OF DENNIS AND BARBARA GEORGATOS, THEREBY OVERTURNING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW, AS FILED UNDER CASE PAP-93 (PADR-1472) WHEREAS, Dennis and Barbara Georgatos have appealed the Zoning Administrator's approval of Case PADR-1472, the application of Stan and Stacey Knight for administrative design review approval to construct: (1) an approximately 180-squaze-foot covered patio; (2) an approximately 292-square-foot first-floor addition on the reaz; and (3) an approximately 1,251-square-foot second-story addition over part of the center and side portions of the existing residence located at 779 Mirador Court; and WHEREAS, zoning for the property is R-1-6,500 (Single-Family Residential) District; and WHEREAS, at its duly noticed public hearings of June 14, 2006 and June 28, 2006, the Planning Commission considered all public testimony, relevant exhibits, and recommendations of the City staff concerning this application; and WHEREAS, projects of this nature are categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed project is not consistent with the appeazance of the existing buildings in the area. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON RESOLVES THE FOLLOWING: Section 1. Upholds Case PAP-93, the appeal of Dennis and Bazbara Georgatos, thereby overturning the Zoning Administrator's approval of Case PADR-1472, the application of Stan and Stacey Knight for administrative design review approval to construct: (1) an approximately 180-square-foot covered patio; (2) an approximately 292-square-foot first-floor addition on the rear; and (3) an approximately 1,251-square-foot second-story addition over part of the center and side portions of the existing residence located at 779 Mirador Court, without prejudice, and with the provision that should the decision be appealed to the City Council, mediation by a third party take place prior to the Council hearing, with membership to be limited to the appellants, the applicants, the architect, and a member in support of the project.