11 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

The objectives of the zoning ordinance are to promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort, prosperity and general welfare. These objectives would be achieved through providing a precise guide for the physical development of the city and promoting the stability of existing land uses that conform to the general plan. The subject fence meets the development standards of the R-1-6,500 zoning district in terms of setback and height. The Zoning Administrator was able to make the required findings as outlined by 18.84.090.G(3a-c) of the Pleasanton Municipal Code could be made to approve the application: a. The application conforms to the objectives of the Pleasanton Zoning Ordinance. b. The application assists in providing privacy, in attenuating sound transmission, and/or in reducing other annoyance from neighboring properties. c. The application does not significantly impact upon the aesthetics and safety of the neighborhood nor the light and air to all affected properties. Specifically, the proposed fencing was found to assist in providing privacy, in attenuating sound transmission to and from Mr. Deike's use of his back yard and pool, and/or in reducing other annoyances from neighboring properties such as the peering in of neighboring property owners, video taping, and other events that have reportedly occurred. Furthermore, Finding 3c establishes the design criteria for approving overheight fencing. It was found that the subject fencing is constructed of high quality materials and is consistent with other existing fencing found within the neighborhood. The neighborhood does not have an approved fencing plan for the development. The neighboring properties have a variety of fencing types, heights, and colors. The code allows up to an eight foot tall fence to be constructed with City approval. The total height of the fence does not exceed seven feet, 1-inch, which allows the passage of light and air to the neighboring lots while still providing privacy for the parcels. The Zoning Administrator found that the design of the fencing was acceptable. In addition, the Zoning Administrator found that the fencing did not detrimentally affect the light and air of the neighboring properties, nor create a traffic sight obstruction. On October 12, 2011, Staff met with Ms. Fink to discuss the options for adjusting the portion of her fencing that is shared with Mr. Pretzel. Ms. Fink provided a signed statement expressing that she does not wish to have any work done to her existing fence, nor does she want to have a second fence built behind her existing fence. Ms. Fink's statement also specifies that she is not agreeable to having any fencing that is over 6-foot tall along her back yard (Exhibit E). Staff has revised the conditions of approval to eliminate requirement for the applicant to pursue the additional fencing options (Exhibit A). Case No. P11-0664 (Administrative Design Review-Appeal) Planning Commission Page - 6 -