CCMIN101805 - Laserfiche WebLink

between the existing six-foot fence and the City required planting of trees, which will be densely packed and dwarf the six-foot fence. He questioned the validity of a seven-foot tall fence other than to add substantial costs to the Diazs' project. The genesis of the seven-foot fence was mentioned at the Planning Commission meeting when Mr. Crofton asked that he be allowed to install it and it was not something that the Diazs heard during the public comment period, which was ultimately imposed upon his clients. The condition as it exists today would require the Croftons to provide access for construction of the fence or else the fence would have to be recessed on his client's property which there is nothing in the conditions of approval that require this nor did he believe there was anything Council could do to require it. Currently, the Diazs are forced to build a new fence without any cooperation on the other side, which he believed was unreasonable. Furthermore as the condition exists, it is left to the Croftons to decide whether they approve of the design of the fence. He pointed out that there are many trees on the Diazs' property and the new trees are unnecessary in the scheme of things. He noted that the deck is not new and has always existed. He believed the conditions were not reasonable and not related to the project that is being constructed and he requested Council to uphold the Diazs' appeal and remove these two conditions. Greg Crofton, appellant of the Zoning Administrator's action, provided written communication to Council which requested Council to deny the appeal and modify the conditions of approval pursuant to the following: (1) revise item 3 of the conditions of approval to state that prior to the issuance of a building permit, an independent Civil Engineer certified by the State of California shall verify that any grading required for the retaining walls on the property will not undermine the integrity of the existing slopes; (2) revise item 8 of the conditions of approval to state that the applicant shall replace the three trees to be removed for construction with three 24-inch box Pittosporum eugenioides trees, the locations shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director to provide the maximum screening possible; and (3) add another condition that requires a variance is hereby granted to allow construction of a seven-foot fence along the north property line between the properties of the applicants and the residents living at 4757 Peaceful Lane. The applicant is to provide evidence that they have either paid for or reimbursed for the construction of this fence prior to the issuance of a building permit. He noted the issue is not the number of trees in the yard but the specific trees that provide screening to him are being removed. He pointed out that the second story addition would bring the addition 17 feet closer to his home with large first and second story windows and a large deck, which would overlook his backyard. He did not object to the addition in general, but to the size of the windows and the construction of a deck that would have a full view of his backyard. To maximize the screening potential, he believed the Diazs' trees should be planted in a location, which would extend beyond the location of the trees he would plant at the completion of his addition. The current plan as approved for the location-of trees would not cover and screen a view from the deck into the Croftons' backyard. He believed adding one more foot to the existing fence would block mutual views of each other's property. He noted that he and the Diazs have included in its plans the intent to install air conditioning units on the side yards, which would create additional noise. The applicant's have planned to move their office into the new addition area, which would create the potential of additional noise with both homes being located closer in proximity to each other. He believed the fence needed to be replaced some time ago. He expressed safety concerns related to the existing fence, particularly during storms and believed the installation of a new fence would provide a safety barrier between the two properties. He believed the three trees and fence are a lower expense than what he went through for his project and requiring the Diazs to pay for the fence is reasonable. In summary, he did not oppose the project and supported its approval with a few conditions, which he believed would address the privacy concerns related to the addition. Pleasanton City Council 7 1 0/18/05 Minutes