My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
16
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2012
>
051512
>
16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/11/2012 11:28:51 AM
Creation date
5/10/2012 3:43:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
1/10/2012
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
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
DISCUSSION <br /> The objectives of the zoning ordinance are to promote the public health, safety, peace, <br /> comfort, prosperity and general welfare. The subject fence meets the development <br /> standards of the R-1-6,500 zoning district in terms of location and height. The subject <br /> fence assists in providing privacy between neighbors. The subject fence does not <br /> significantly impact the aesthetics and safety of the neighborhood or the availability of <br /> the light and air to all adjacent properties. <br /> The design of the fence is a solid redwood fence typically seen in residential <br /> neighborhoods. The subject fence intersects with the rear yard fence which is shared <br /> by Mr. Baker and Ms. Fink. With respect to Ms. Fink's visual concerns of the subject <br /> fence, Condition No. 2 of the Planning Commission's approval requires Mr. Baker to <br /> plant vegetation to help screen the view of the subject fence from Ms. Fink's site. <br /> Additionally, Mr. Pretzel allowed the overheight fence to be constructed. He was the co- <br /> applicant of the overheight fence application. <br /> OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION <br /> The City Council has several options in considering this appeal and the proposed <br /> project. The following are options the City Council may wish to consider and/or discuss: <br /> Option No. 1: Uphold the Appeal and Deny the Overheight Fence. <br /> This option would require that the applicant reduce the height of the <br /> fence to six feet. <br /> Option No. 2: Deny the Appeal and Approve the Overheight Fence, Subject to the <br /> Planning Commission's Conditions of Approval. <br /> This option would allow the subject fence to remain as constructed, <br /> subject to the conditions of approval outlined in the attached resolution. <br /> Option No. 3: Deny the Appeal and Approve the Overheight Fence with Additional <br /> Conditions or Modifications to the Planning Commission's Conditions <br /> of Approval. <br /> Should the Council believe additional landscaping is needed, then the <br /> Council should modify Condition No. 2 accordingly. Should the <br /> Council believe additional conditions would be needed to warrant the <br /> approval of the subject overheight fence, the Council may add <br /> conditions. <br /> PUBLIC NOTICE <br /> Notice regarding this appeal was mailed to the surrounding property owners and <br /> tenants within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site. At the time this report was <br /> prepared, staff had not received any comments concerning the appeal. <br /> Page 6 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.