16 - Laserfiche WebLink

• Pleasanton City Council June 11,2015 Page 2 hearing(Multiple male voices are designated by"Male").At 58:10,the female commissioner states that the case,i.e.the application for remodel,is being taken anew—the appeal is put aside.A motion is made subsequently to approve the building without a balcony. At 1:02:15,a male commissioner re-states "That's OK So —motion is made, and seconded, basically approval without the second story balcony;and we will call for a vote."The motion passed with one opposed and three in favor. In sum, the Planning Commission approved the original application, except the second floor balcony,and did not impose any additional conditions,restrictions or covenants.The Letter has an entire Section 7, however, setting forth certain landscaping requirements as well as requiring recordation of a restrictive covenant against the property.This section must be deleted in its entirety. The objecting parties'(Jamison and Elizabeth Cummings)only expressed concern with the proposed Remodel was related to the proposed second floor balcony purportedly reducing their privacy and nothing else. As a potential remedy to alleviate that concern, a restrictive covenant related to maintenance of an existing tree and planting of new trees against the common fence was suggested by the Zoning Administrator.The second page of the Planning Commission Staff Report summarizes that background. A copy is attached hereto for your reference, but in pertinent part, that Report states as follows: "A primary concern expressed by the Cummings was that the second floor balcony would enable views into their bedroom and backyard/swimming pool area. Staff asked the Cummings whether a new vegetative screen in combination with the existing on-site tree/foliage would satisfy their privacy concerns.The Cummings initially indicated they would reluctantly entertain this suggestion, but preferred the second-floor balcony to be removed completely from the project scope. Subsequently, the Cummings requested a Zoning Administrator Hearing to discuss the issue and potential solutions further with staff and the applicants. On March 10,2015,a Zoning Administrator hearing was held on the subject proposal.The hearing was attended by Jamison Cummings and the property owner Zarina Kiziloglu(please refer to Exhibit E for meeting minutes). At the hearing,the Zoning Administrator asked Mr. Cummings whether a new vegetative screen, a reduction in the width and depth of the second-floor balcony, and/or increasing the height of the western balcony wall would adequately address the view concerns.Mr. Cummings generally rejected those options as presented, expressing concerns that a vegetative screen would deposit organic matter in his yard and would not function effectively at blocking views, among other issues. Mr. Cummings preferred that the proposed second-floor balcony be removed completely from the scope of work After discussion with all parties and review of the proposed plans in the context of the project site and surrounding neighborhood, the Zoning Administrator approved the project, including a requirement that trees be planted to create a vegetative screen between the subject parcel and the Cununings parcel to block views from the balcony to