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
species, at the proposed spacing and density, will result in an adequate vegetative screen to <br /> obstruct views from the proposed second-floor balcony. Furthermore, the City arborist <br /> confirmed that this evergreen species does not drop large amounts of foliage on an annual <br /> basis and does not have an invasive root system. In addition, given the distance between the <br /> trees and the fenceline, there is minimal risk of damage to the fence and the appellants' <br /> sprinkler lines and pool deck. Based on this information, the Zoning Administrator and staff <br /> believe that the installation of these four new trees is a reasonable solution to adequately <br /> address privacy impacts created as a result of the proposed second-floor balcony. <br /> Figure 6: Example of a vegetative screen provided b Thuja Emerald Green trees <br /> • <br /> ! r , <br /> • :3• " <br /> �dr� . <br /> „ _ <br /> • <br /> • <br /> • <br /> Other Mitigations <br /> As discussed above, staff believes the planting of additional trees is a reasonable solution to <br /> adequately address privacy impacts created as a result of the proposed second-floor balcony. <br /> However, staff also considered other possible design options/mitigation measures, as <br /> described below: <br /> • Removing the balcony from the scope of work. <br /> The appellants were supportive of this option at the Zoning Administrator Hearing; <br /> however, the applicants were unwilling to remove the balcony. Ultimately, the Zoning <br /> Administrator rejected this option as the proposed second-floor balcony met all the <br /> prescribed development standards of the underlying zoning district and the conditioned <br /> P15-0037, Kiziloglu Addition Planning Commission <br /> 9 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.