My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN081815
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
CCMIN081815
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/14/2015 12:54:17 PM
Creation date
10/14/2015 12:54:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/18/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
property improvements including a 297-square-foot single-story addition, 558-square-foot second-floor <br /> addition, rear-facing second-floor balcony, 5 new dormer windows, new second-floor doors and <br /> windows, and a new roof over the existing front porch. <br /> The project was reviewed and approved at a Zoning Administrator's hearing. At that hearing, the <br /> Zoning Administrator explored various options to help mitigate privacy concerns that were raised by the <br /> applicants' neighbors to the west, Jamison and Elizabeth Cummings, and ultimately added a condition <br /> of approval requiring the applicants to install 4 evergreen trees near the western property line and to <br /> maintain an existing mulberry tree to help screen the addition and balcony. <br /> The project was subsequently appealed to the Planning Commission by the Cummings, who did not <br /> feel that the trees would provide an effective screen and requested that the balcony be removed from <br /> the project. The Commission reviewed the project and, finding that it would result in privacy impacts on <br /> the Cummings, approved the project minus the balcony. The Commission also expressed concern with <br /> setting a precedent of allowing second-floor rear-facing balconies in the Birdland neighborhood, which <br /> they felt would be out of character with the general neighborhood.. The applicants, Kursad and Zarina <br /> Kiziloglu, have appealed the Planning Commission's decision and are requesting that the Council <br /> approve the project with the balcony. <br /> Mr. Otto reviewed the site and project specifications, stating that the subject site is an 8,760-square- <br /> foot lot located on the south side of Hummingbird Road with a rear property line that backs up to Valley <br /> Avenue. The Cummings' property is located immediately to the west. The proposed project would <br /> maintain existing front and side yard setbacks but reduce the rear yard setback from 59' 8" to 51' 9". <br /> The western side of the proposed balcony, which is 23' 5" wide by 6' 2" deep for a total of 155 square <br /> feet, would be set back approximately 25' from the western property line. The additions would total 855 <br /> square feet, resulting in a total of 3,393 square feet and a total floor area ratio of 38.7%. The height of <br /> the residence would not change. He presented several renderings of both front and rear elevations. <br /> He explained that the Cummings have expressed concern that the balcony would afford views into their <br /> rear yard and bedroom windows, thus unfairly impacting their privacy. He presented several photos <br /> depicting existing views out of the one of the applicants' rear bedroom windows which is similarly <br /> located, albeit a bit closer to the Cummings, to the proposed balcony. These photos included the <br /> mulberry tree and 4 evergreen trees that the applicants installed shortly before the Planning <br /> Commission hearing. <br /> The primary point of contention with the project is the rear balcony, which the applicants are requesting <br /> approval for and which the Cummings continue to express privacy concerns over despite the vegetative <br /> screening. An additional point of contention relates to Condition of Approval No. 7 which requires the 4 <br /> new evergreen plantings and preservation of the mulberry tree. The condition also requires that a <br /> restrictive covenant be recorded to ensure the trees are maintained and replaced should one fail. The <br /> Kiziloglus are requesting removal of this condition while the Cummings wish for it to remain, even if the <br /> balcony is not approved. Staff notes that the condition was written to apply to both the addition and the <br /> balcony and therefore recommends that it be retained regardless of the status of the balcony. However, <br /> staff would also recommend that references to the balcony be removed if it is not approved and that the <br /> condition be modified to clarify that the 4 evergreen trees have already been planted. <br /> Mr. Otto stated that staff believes the Planning Commission action is appropriate and will result in a <br /> project that adequately mitigates the privacy concerns expressed by the Cummings. Staff also believes <br /> that approving the project without the balcony is a fair and reasonable compromise that allows the <br /> applicants to undertake the vast majority of their project while still taking the neighbor's concerns into <br /> account. Therefore staff recommends that the Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning <br /> Commission's approval with the changes noted to Condition No. 7. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 4 of 14 August 18,2015 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.