CCMIN101805 - Laserfiche WebLink

Nancy Crofton, appellant of the Zoning Administrator's action, referenced a photograph of the Diazs' deck into her backyard and noted that where the trees were located screen the majority of her backyard, and what could only be seen from the deck is the back of her house and a slender portion of her backyard. She pointed out that her backyard sets back further and the current trees on the Diazs' properly proYide priyacy into her back yard. Mr. Sullivan asked staff to comment on the suggested revision to item 3 of the conditions of approval as proposed by the Croftons which would require an independent Civil Engineer certified by the State of California to verify any grading required for the retaining walls on the property would not undermine the integrity of the existing slopes. Mr. lserson said during the building review process, the Building Department would make sure the retaining wall was constructed properly and believed this would cover the Crofton's concern. Mayor Hosterman pointed out that the Croftons are concerned about the integrity of the existing slopes. Mr. Brozosky inquired about the height of the retaining walls. Mr. Iserson pointed out there is a four-foot difference between the elevations. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Brozosky, Mr. lserson believed it was six-feet in total counting below and above grade. He noted that the height of a retaining wall needs to be almost as deep as it is tall and the Crofton's would need a building permit and the Building Inspectors would check the structural integrity. Mr. Thorne believed the Croftons largest concern was the ability for their neighbors to view into their backyard. He asked how much discussion occurred amongst staff and at the Planning Commission meeting to actually screen the deck on the Crofton's side. Mr. Iserson said staff was concerned about this issue during its review and believed there should be the replanting of the trees in such a way as to try and address it. As the photograph shows, the existing trees provide some screening for the deck and is the reason why staff is recommending that they be replaced so that in a reasonable period of time, the trees would go up and provide similar amount of screening as provided now. Mr. Thorne was considering constructing or placing a screening device on the Diazs' deck. Mr. lserson said this would be another approach and there have been decks in similar situations where there have been requirements that require walls to be built on an end of the deck on top of the rail which would block views. He pointed out that some times these have their own impacts in terms of the user feeling that they are walled in when using their deck and staff prefers to do something softer such as tree planting rather than a barrier. Mr. Thorne mentioned that he visited the site and the Crofton's. He did not believe a seven-foot tall fence would adequately mitigate privacy concerns. Pleasanton City Council 8 10/18/05 Minutes