My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
16
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
081815
>
16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/18/2015 11:40:25 AM
Creation date
8/11/2015 4:04:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
8/18/2015
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.
/
77
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
root systems would potentially affect the appellants' sprinkler lines, pool deck, and pool <br /> cleanliness. The appellants also indicated that the existing mulberry tree at the southwest <br /> corner of the subject residence is a deciduous species (losing its leaves in the Fall) and thus <br /> would not provide effective screening between the appellants' bedroom windows and <br /> backyard/swimming pool area from the proposed second-floor balcony. <br /> The appellants stated that elimination of the proposed second-floor balcony would be the sole <br /> means of gaining their support for the remainder of the proposed project. <br /> Privacy Concerns <br /> The appellants' primary concerns about the project relate to privacy. The R-1-6,500 Zoning <br /> District, in which the subject and appellants' parcels are both located, is considered a medium <br /> density, small lot district. Thus complete privacy is difficult to achieve. This is illustrated in the <br /> prescribed development standards detailed above, which include a five-foot side yard setback <br /> on one side and a 20-foot rear yard setback, to which the subject proposal, including the <br /> second-floor balcony, is compliant. Staff is sensitive to the appellants' privacy concerns related <br /> to the proposed second-floor balcony. However, as can be seen in the photos below (Figures 2 <br /> and 3), which were taken from two of the existing second-floor bedrooms on the subject parcel, <br /> there is already a partially obscured view into the appellants' backyard area due to the existing <br /> mulberry tree on the subject parcel and Bay tree in the appellants' yard. However, when the <br /> existing mulberry tree has full foliage, staff believes there would be little to no view into the <br /> appellant's yard from the same vantage points. <br /> Figure 2: View into as•ellants' and from an existing upstairs bedroom on the sub e.ct parcel <br /> :.-;;4.' Wili -‹ .k-:""*. ' N1/4.:'‘,,: ‘ <br /> M <br /> . I -� .-II" W...inr. ! * • n <br /> ,, <br /> v } I , I , <br /> - It <br /> i 4 r ..iihr <br /> 1 .,, <br /> . '°- '`:Wiiiiiiiiii <br /> I vfl';511.61...' 14•,. g7fc3 .�� '!.. <br /> Ai, ..; Y : <br /> ` A <br /> r - <br /> f <br /> P15-0037. Kiziloglu Addition Planning Commission <br /> 1 6 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.