My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
13
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2012
>
011012
>
13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/6/2012 11:59:24 AM
Creation date
1/6/2012 11:59:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
1/10/2012
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
13
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The primary disagreement associated with the application is the mismatch of the fence <br /> height along the appellant's rear yard fencing (as seen in Photo 1). <br /> Options for Consideration <br /> If the City Council does not support staff's recommendation, they may wish to consider <br /> and/or discuss the following: <br /> Option 1: Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval with <br /> conditions of approval requiring the height of the rear fencing to be <br /> reduced to match the remaining section of fencing along Mr. Pretzel's rear <br /> yard (six-foot, six inches tall). Draft conditions of approval for this option <br /> are provided in this report as Attachment 8. <br /> Option 2: Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval with <br /> conditions of approval as determined by the Council. <br /> Option 3: To uphold the appeal, thereby denying the overheight fencing. <br /> PUBLIC NOTICE <br /> Notices regarding this appeal and related public hearing were mailed to the surrounding <br /> property owners and tenants within a 1000-foot radius of the project site. At the time <br /> this report was prepared staff has not received any additional comments or concerns. <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT <br /> Projects of this nature are categorically exempt from the requirements of the California <br /> Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 Class 3 — New <br /> Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Therefore, no environmental document <br /> accompanies this report. <br /> CONCLUSION <br /> Staff believes that the subject fencing meets that objectives of the Zoning Ordinance <br /> and that the required fence findings can be made. The fencing is constructed of high <br /> quality materials and is consistent with the design, materials, and height of the other <br /> existing fencing found within the neighborhood. The proposed fencing would also <br /> provide additional privacy and sound attenuation compared to shorter fencing. <br /> Therefore, staff supports the fencing as constructed. <br /> Page 6 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.